Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-27 11:01:37
hjnatdat

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.


He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-27 12:39:24
Paul Trevor Bale
Where on Earth is Crukerne? My parents lived in Somerset and I never heard of it.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 nov. 2018 à 12:01, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.


He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-27 14:27:51
A J Hibbard
Crewkerne.
A J

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:39 AM Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
 

Where on Earth is Crukerne? My parents lived in Somerset and I never heard of it.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 nov. 2018 à 12:01, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

 

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.


He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482  where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H 


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-27 15:02:57
Hilary Jones
Yes sorry Paul I used the 'ancient' spelling. They seemed to use that version a lot then. Sorry again! H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 14:41:14 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Crewkerne.
A J

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 6:39 AM Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Where on Earth is Crukerne? My parents lived in Somerset and I never heard of it.



Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 nov. 2018 à 12:01, hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Nico, I have found John Bonauntre in the Fine Rolls (whilst looking for Buckingham of course!).

He appears on 02 Mar 1478 as 'one of the King's servants, Yeoman of the Crown' and is given the office of Bailiff of Crukerne in Somerset for life.


He appears as the creditor in two cases for debt on 06 Nov 1481 and 24 June 1482 where he is described as John Bonauntre of London 'serjeant' (presumable Serjeant at Law?) on both occasions. I'll look in the earlier and later rolls. H


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-27 22:45:55
nico11238

Thanks Hilary,

That is interesting, a Bonauntre with Somerset and London connections. Crewkerne Manor reverted to the Crown after Clarence's execution, so perhaps Bonauntre had been a servant of Clarence. Before that the lands had been in the Courtenay family. Is Bonauntre a variant spelling of Beaumont or did Thomas Beaumont's family change in because it sounded fancier. I suspect the former because they also use the Bemond spelling. Perhaps there was a distant relationship to the Devon Beaumonts.

I couldn't find the 1481 and 1482, but I did find some references to Bonauntres and Spaynes listed together in the early 1400s around the Fenchurch Street area in BHOL. I think this is the family of Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the Spaynes and Bonauntre/Beaumonts went back a long way. When Beaumont died his widow married a Spayne. I still think the Spaynes originate in Kent from the area with a lot of Yorkist families.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Cartulary: Parish Fraternity Register: Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and SS. Fabian and Sebastian (Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate)Walcote and John Loueye, sheriffs, John Bonauntre, John de Dyke, John ... alderman, Ralph Silkston, Ralph Spayne, John Bonauntre junior and Richard...
As for the unspecified Beaumont in the other document, judging from the calibre of the other names listed, he was probably from the Viscounts Beaumont branch, as he is high on the list of some prestigious names. I will take another look at them to see if I can isolate anyone.

So many interesting conversations, I'm still catching up, but I will do a bit more digging to see if there was a Clarence connection to the family that Sir Edward Brampton married into.

Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-28 08:58:30
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Thanks Hilary,

That is interesting, a Bonauntre with Somerset and London connections. Crewkerne Manor reverted to the Crown after Clarence's execution, so perhaps Bonauntre had been a servant of Clarence. Before that the lands had been in the Courtenay family. Is Bonauntre a variant spelling of Beaumont or did Thomas Beaumont's family change in because it sounded fancier. I suspect the former because they also use the Bemond spelling. Perhaps there was a distant relationship to the Devon Beaumonts.

I couldn't find the 1481 and 1482, but I did find some references to Bonauntres and Spaynes listed together in the early 1400s around the Fenchurch Street area in BHOL. I think this is the family of Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the Spaynes and Bonauntre/Beaumonts went back a long way. When Beaumont died his widow married a Spayne. I still think the Spaynes originate in Kent from the area with a lot of Yorkist families.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Cartulary: Parish Fraternity Register: Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and SS. Fabian and Sebastian (Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate)Walcote and John Loueye, sheriffs, John Bonauntre, John de Dyke, John ... alderman, Ralph Silkston, Ralph Spayne, John Bonauntre junior and Richard...
As for the unspecified Beaumont in the other document, judging from the calibre of the other names listed, he was probably from the Viscounts Beaumont branch, as he is high on the list of some prestigious names. I will take another look at them to see if I can isolate anyone.

So many interesting conversations, I'm still catching up, but I will do a bit more digging to see if there was a Clarence connection to the family that Sir Edward Brampton married into.

Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-28 22:32:09
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
Unfortunately, I don't have an ancestry subscription, so I would be grateful if you could download it. Judging from the dates, I would say that Thomas Beaumont and Margaret Brampton were most likely the great grandchildren of these particular Bonauntres. Since Thomas' parishes were in Somerset, it looks likely that they were the children of John Bonauntre of Crewkerne, and if their families originate in Kent and Essex, chances are that the Crewkerne connection came as a result of John Bonauntre's service to Clarence, and the entry in the Fine Rolls was a reconfirmation of the position he had previously held.
Thomas Beaumont's executor was Oliver King, so I am getting an impression of a network of families who were once well connected with the House of York. Beaumont and King may have had their confidence, which put them in position to uncover information about people with Yorkist leanings that was passed on to Henry - particularly the strange business of Ralph Wilford, which I suspect was a more serious plot that HT ever acknowledged. It is clear from his will that Thomas Beaumont was close to Brampton through his sister and the children, who along with his mother were the only family beneficiaries. If anyone knew what involvement Brampton had with the Princes or who PW actually was, it was likely him. Once Brampton's interests lay with the King of Portugal and ultimately HT, so did Thomas Beaumont's.
Nico





On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 08:58:38 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Thanks Hilary,

That is interesting, a Bonauntre with Somerset and London connections. Crewkerne Manor reverted to the Crown after Clarence's execution, so perhaps Bonauntre had been a servant of Clarence. Before that the lands had been in the Courtenay family. Is Bonauntre a variant spelling of Beaumont or did Thomas Beaumont's family change in because it sounded fancier. I suspect the former because they also use the Bemond spelling. Perhaps there was a distant relationship to the Devon Beaumonts.

I couldn't find the 1481 and 1482, but I did find some references to Bonauntres and Spaynes listed together in the early 1400s around the Fenchurch Street area in BHOL. I think this is the family of Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the Spaynes and Bonauntre/Beaumonts went back a long way. When Beaumont died his widow married a Spayne. I still think the Spaynes originate in Kent from the area with a lot of Yorkist families.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Cartulary: Parish Fraternity Register: Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and SS. Fabian and Sebastian (Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate)Walcote and John Loueye, sheriffs, John Bonauntre, John de Dyke, John ... alderman, Ralph Silkston, Ralph Spayne, John Bonauntre junior and Richard...
As for the unspecified Beaumont in the other document, judging from the calibre of the other names listed, he was probably from the Viscounts Beaumont branch, as he is high on the list of some prestigious names. I will take another look at them to see if I can isolate anyone.

So many interesting conversations, I'm still catching up, but I will do a bit more digging to see if there was a Clarence connection to the family that Sir Edward Brampton married into.

Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-29 11:13:00
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico,
You don't need one. Here we go from BHOL:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/court-husting-wills/vol2/pp310-316#highlight-first

Notice St Dionysius again so must be 'our' John of 1417. We have his parents' names and we are actually going back quite a long way.
There is a Richard Beaumont of Specott, Devon (born circa 1320) who just could be the father of our William, since his father is William (mother Joan Courtenay). These are the 'de Belle Montes' of Shirwell Devon from who are descended the Beaumonts of Gittisham - nothing to do with the Lord Beaumonts. But I reckon Thomas Beaumont's near heritage stems from fourteenth century London, as does that of the Sapynes, Cosyns and Kings.
I'll do a bit more digging. H
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 22:33:40 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Unfortunately, I don't have an ancestry subscription, so I would be grateful if you could download it. Judging from the dates, I would say that Thomas Beaumont and Margaret Brampton were most likely the great grandchildren of these particular Bonauntres. Since Thomas' parishes were in Somerset, it looks likely that they were the children of John Bonauntre of Crewkerne, and if their families originate in Kent and Essex, chances are that the Crewkerne connection came as a result of John Bonauntre's service to Clarence, and the entry in the Fine Rolls was a reconfirmation of the position he had previously held.
Thomas Beaumont's executor was Oliver King, so I am getting an impression of a network of families who were once well connected with the House of York. Beaumont and King may have had their confidence, which put them in position to uncover information about people with Yorkist leanings that was passed on to Henry - particularly the strange business of Ralph Wilford, which I suspect was a more serious plot that HT ever acknowledged. It is clear from his will that Thomas Beaumont was close to Brampton through his sister and the children, who along with his mother were the only family beneficiaries. If anyone knew what involvement Brampton had with the Princes or who PW actually was, it was likely him. Once Brampton's interests lay with the King of Portugal and ultimately HT, so did Thomas Beaumont's.
Nico





On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 08:58:38 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Thanks Hilary,

That is interesting, a Bonauntre with Somerset and London connections. Crewkerne Manor reverted to the Crown after Clarence's execution, so perhaps Bonauntre had been a servant of Clarence. Before that the lands had been in the Courtenay family. Is Bonauntre a variant spelling of Beaumont or did Thomas Beaumont's family change in because it sounded fancier. I suspect the former because they also use the Bemond spelling. Perhaps there was a distant relationship to the Devon Beaumonts.

I couldn't find the 1481 and 1482, but I did find some references to Bonauntres and Spaynes listed together in the early 1400s around the Fenchurch Street area in BHOL. I think this is the family of Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the Spaynes and Bonauntre/Beaumonts went back a long way. When Beaumont died his widow married a Spayne. I still think the Spaynes originate in Kent from the area with a lot of Yorkist families.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Cartulary: Parish Fraternity Register: Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and SS. Fabian and Sebastian (Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate)Walcote and John Loueye, sheriffs, John Bonauntre, John de Dyke, John ... alderman, Ralph Silkston, Ralph Spayne, John Bonauntre junior and Richard...
As for the unspecified Beaumont in the other document, judging from the calibre of the other names listed, he was probably from the Viscounts Beaumont branch, as he is high on the list of some prestigious names. I will take another look at them to see if I can isolate anyone.

So many interesting conversations, I'm still catching up, but I will do a bit more digging to see if there was a Clarence connection to the family that Sir Edward Brampton married into.

Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-29 18:35:06
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary,
That area around Fenchurch Street would draw in migrants to London from Essex and Kent. Thomas Bonauntre the Tapicer had land around Chigwell and Barking just across the river from Kent where the Spaynes come from. Did they also own land in Kent? As for the Devon connection, Specott (now Speccott Barton) is a small village in the West of Devon, not near Crewkerne, but the link to that area may have been service to Clarence or some connection to the Courtenays. The only Joan Courtenay who married a William Beaumont, was the one who was Sir Henry Bodrugan's mother. Was there an earlier couple with those names?

Judging from his will, Thomas the tapicer appears to have had substantial wealth. A tapicer is a maker or seller of tapestries, isn't it? He also seems to have brewing interests. Wasn't Bremonger an occupational name for brewer? Emme Bremonger (later Beaumont and Spayne) on the short list for Thomas and Margaret's mother. This is looking more and more like the right family. I hope a bit more digging will pin them down exactly.

Nico

On Thursday, 29 November 2018, 11:13:06 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico,
You don't need one. Here we go from BHOL:
https://www.british-history.ac.uk/court-husting-wills/vol2/pp310-316#highlight-first

Notice St Dionysius again so must be 'our' John of 1417. We have his parents' names and we are actually going back quite a long way.
There is a Richard Beaumont of Specott, Devon (born circa 1320) who just could be the father of our William, since his father is William (mother Joan Courtenay). These are the 'de Belle Montes' of Shirwell Devon from who are descended the Beaumonts of Gittisham - nothing to do with the Lord Beaumonts. But I reckon Thomas Beaumont's near heritage stems from fourteenth century London, as does that of the Sapynes, Cosyns and Kings.
I'll do a bit more digging. H
On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 22:33:40 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
Unfortunately, I don't have an ancestry subscription, so I would be grateful if you could download it. Judging from the dates, I would say that Thomas Beaumont and Margaret Brampton were most likely the great grandchildren of these particular Bonauntres. Since Thomas' parishes were in Somerset, it looks likely that they were the children of John Bonauntre of Crewkerne, and if their families originate in Kent and Essex, chances are that the Crewkerne connection came as a result of John Bonauntre's service to Clarence, and the entry in the Fine Rolls was a reconfirmation of the position he had previously held.
Thomas Beaumont's executor was Oliver King, so I am getting an impression of a network of families who were once well connected with the House of York. Beaumont and King may have had their confidence, which put them in position to uncover information about people with Yorkist leanings that was passed on to Henry - particularly the strange business of Ralph Wilford, which I suspect was a more serious plot that HT ever acknowledged. It is clear from his will that Thomas Beaumont was close to Brampton through his sister and the children, who along with his mother were the only family beneficiaries. If anyone knew what involvement Brampton had with the Princes or who PW actually was, it was likely him. Once Brampton's interests lay with the King of Portugal and ultimately HT, so did Thomas Beaumont's.
Nico





On Wednesday, 28 November 2018, 08:58:38 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico I think we'll get there in the end!
Your William and John Bonauntre were the sons of Thomas Beaumont, tapicer who died in April 1394 and left a will. Do you have a subscription to Ancestry? If not I'll try and download it from there. I think John Beaumont the Chandler (died 1417) was probably his brother. There is also a William, who was sheriff of London who was probably their father in the mid fourteenth century. I think they had another brother Thomas, who was a chandler and father to Thomas the Salter. They had land in Essex and Kent.
I agree about the Spaynes - it was the point I was trying to make to Marie (not helped by BH online going down at that point). Also in these circles you'll find the Cosyn family (i.e. that of Archdeacon William) and the King family. As you know Oliver King was William's uncle. The Cosyns and the Kings originated as taylors, with Cosyn's father becoming Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV. So it's not a 'clerical appointment' co-incidence - they have been linked for years.
I'm very interested in the Clarence connection - more and more trails lead to him I find.
Oh and I forgot to mention. One Robert Bornaunt was made Escheator of Devon and Cornwall by Richard. More work to do on him. H
On Tuesday, 27 November 2018, 22:46:01 GMT, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Thanks Hilary,

That is interesting, a Bonauntre with Somerset and London connections. Crewkerne Manor reverted to the Crown after Clarence's execution, so perhaps Bonauntre had been a servant of Clarence. Before that the lands had been in the Courtenay family. Is Bonauntre a variant spelling of Beaumont or did Thomas Beaumont's family change in because it sounded fancier. I suspect the former because they also use the Bemond spelling. Perhaps there was a distant relationship to the Devon Beaumonts.

I couldn't find the 1481 and 1482, but I did find some references to Bonauntres and Spaynes listed together in the early 1400s around the Fenchurch Street area in BHOL. I think this is the family of Thomas the Archdeacon and Margaret Brampton, and the Spaynes and Bonauntre/Beaumonts went back a long way. When Beaumont died his widow married a Spayne. I still think the Spaynes originate in Kent from the area with a lot of Yorkist families.

Masters of Ministries: Tapicers : 8 Oct., the same year, William Bullok, Robert Spayne, Thomas Besouth, John Bonauntre, similarly sworn.

4 March 1409: Bond of John Kelsey, William Bonauntre, Ralph Spayne, Thomas Wade, Robert Hebbe and William Bullok, tapicers, and John Port and Philip Tayllour, parishioners of St Denis Bakchirche, for their good behaviour towards the mistery of Cordwainers, and that none of them would in future collect. money for a football (pro pila pedali) (fn. 9) or money called "cok sylver" for a cock, hen, capon, pullet or other bird or for any other use, and that they would not thrash (trituret Anglice thresshe) any hen or capon or any other bird in the streets and lanes of the city, under penalty of £20.

Cartulary: Parish Fraternity Register: Fraternity of the Holy Trinity and SS. Fabian and Sebastian (Parish of St. Botolph without Aldersgate)Walcote and John Loueye, sheriffs, John Bonauntre, John de Dyke, John ... alderman, Ralph Silkston, Ralph Spayne, John Bonauntre junior and Richard...
As for the unspecified Beaumont in the other document, judging from the calibre of the other names listed, he was probably from the Viscounts Beaumont branch, as he is high on the list of some prestigious names. I will take another look at them to see if I can isolate anyone.

So many interesting conversations, I'm still catching up, but I will do a bit more digging to see if there was a Clarence connection to the family that Sir Edward Brampton married into.

Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-29 23:34:23
ricard1an
Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-30 10:04:17
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-30 10:33:50
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, (and Mary) thanks!
The connection is London, isn't it? Sir John Pecche died in 1440 and his grandfather was Lord Mayor of London and one of a line of Pecche MPs. They were clothiers and we have IPMs for them.
I reckon we've got to throw the London Bramptons into this as well. William was Alderman and Mayor of the Staple in Calais as well and died in 1406. His grandson died in about 1472 and he had a son John who was still around. Did Sir Edward take his name from them, not Chapel Brampton? And of course it does make sense because King Edward knew London and its merchants well - he hardly ever left there.
Back to digging. H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-30 10:51:23
Hilary Jones
Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-11-30 10:57:04
Hilary Jones
Sorry Bobbingworth Essex!

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:51:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-12-01 14:35:23
Nicholas Brown

Hi,

I have also noticed quite a few Brampton references in relation to the Bonauntre group. Perhaps this was where the Sir Edward got the idea for his new name.
Bobbingworth was near Chigwell where John Bonauntre owned lands. According to BHOL, Bobbingworth Manor had some well known owners during the Wars of the Roses:
Ralph de Merk granted the overlordship of these tenements to Humphrey, Earl of Hereford and Essex (d. 1322) who in 1312-13 granted it in fee tail to his youngest son William de Bohun, later Earl of Northampton. (fn. 6) In 1328 the manor of Bobbingworth was held of William by the service of ½ knight's fee. (fn. 7) He died in 1360 and was succeeded by his son Humphrey, later Earl of Hereford and of Essex. (fn. 8) After Humphrey's death in 1373 the overlordship passed through his daughter Eleanor to Anne wife of Edmund Earl of March. (fn. 9) After the deaths of Edmund (1425) and Anne (1432) the overlordship passed to Anne's brother Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1460). (fn. 10) In 1475 the manor was held of Humphrey's widow Anne. (fn. 11) In 1485 and 1493 it was held of Jasper, Duke of Bedford (d. 1495) and his wife Katherine whose first husband had been Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1483).
I wonder if the Writtles and Bonauntres were ever in the service of any of these people. I will keep looking for Clarence links.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 11:23:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Bobbingworth Essex!

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:51:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-12-02 10:39:33
Hilary Jones
Very interesting Nico!
I managed to get hold of a copy of the historyofparliament for the fifteenth century (the bit that isn't published yet). Here's the link:
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=xceHAAAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PA772

Two things:
Isabel Vaux is given as the mother of Thomas Tresham and as William Tresham's only wife
William Pecche of Lullingstone is given as husband of widow of William Tresham, Unknown Clifford and Anne Proffitt
As you know, I missed a lot at the beginning of this. From where did Marie get the divorce details?
Secondly, who originally gave the name Margaret Beaumont as Sir Edward's second wife? I assume they wouldn't have looked at Beaumont's will to get this? Arthurson doesn't say but then his annotations aren't always that good.
Sorry to be a nuisance I'll look at all my Clarence contacts too. H
On Saturday, 1 December 2018, 14:36:57 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,

I have also noticed quite a few Brampton references in relation to the Bonauntre group. Perhaps this was where the Sir Edward got the idea for his new name.
Bobbingworth was near Chigwell where John Bonauntre owned lands. According to BHOL, Bobbingworth Manor had some well known owners during the Wars of the Roses:
Ralph de Merk granted the overlordship of these tenements to Humphrey, Earl of Hereford and Essex (d. 1322) who in 1312-13 granted it in fee tail to his youngest son William de Bohun, later Earl of Northampton. (fn. 6) In 1328 the manor of Bobbingworth was held of William by the service of ½ knight's fee. (fn. 7) He died in 1360 and was succeeded by his son Humph
rey, later Earl of Hereford and of Essex. (fn. 8) After Humphrey's death in 1373 the overlordship passed through his daughter Eleanor to Anne wife of Edmund Earl of March. (fn. 9) After the deaths of Edmund (1425) and Anne (1432) the overlordship passed to Anne's brother Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1460). (fn. 10) In 1475 the manor was held of Humphrey's widow Anne. (fn. 11) In 1485 and 1493 it was held of Jasper, Duke of Bedford (d. 1495) and his wife Katherine whose first husband had been Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham (d. 1483).
I wonder if the Writtles and Bonauntres were ever in the service of any of these people. I will keep looking for Clarence links..

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 11:23:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry Bobbingworth Essex!

On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:51:32 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi again. Just looked at my database. The Writtles came from Bobbingworth Kent. Robert was the father-in-law of Katherine (Boston) Haute, wife of Richard Haute (died 1492). His grandson was John Writtle, Lord Mayor of London (died Oct 1485) H
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 10:04:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Mary, The Beaumonts of Kesteven were the Lords Beaumont and had held Folkingham Castle since about 1300. John 1st Viscount Beaumont and his son Sir John were both killed at Northampton and their estates confiscated, but I didn't realize that some of them were given to Hastings. I will take a look at that article. The unspecified Beaumont named in the summons that Hilary found in Foedera is most likely Sir John Beaumont's son, William, 2nd Viscount Beaumont (1438-1507).
The Lords Beaumont and the Devon branch were consistently Lancastrian throughout the WoR, which sparked my interest in Sir Edward Brampton's wife being a Beaumont, and whether that affected his loyalties, especially since her brother did well under HT. However, it now seems that if she had any links to the main Beaumont families they were long distant, and her more immediate roots were in London with links to Essex and Kent and part of a social network of trading families with Yorkist links.

Hilary, I found a few more references to John and Agnes Bonauntre. Here is one, where John Pecche (Lullingstone, I presume) shows up: (link: http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_114_301.shtml) - last on page.
CP 25/1/114/301, number 200. Link: Image of document at AALT County: Kent. Place: Westminster. Date: Two weeks from Holy Trinity, 6 Henry VI [13 June 1428]. Parties: John Chesham, citizen of London', John Pecche, knight, and Robert Wrytle, querents, and John Bonauntre the younger, citizen and tapisser of London', and Agnes, his wife, late the wife of John Kensale, deforciants. Property: 2 messuages and 6 acres of land in Grauesende, Milton' and Northflete. Action: Plea of covenant. Agreement: John Bonauntre and Agnes have acknowledged the tenements to be the right of John Chesham, as those which the same John, John Pecche and Robert have of their gift, and have remised and quitclaimed them from themselves and the heirs of Agnes to John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert and the heirs of John Chesham for ever. Warranty: Warranty. For this: John Chesham, John Pecche and Robert have given them 100 marks of silver.

Nico
On Friday, 30 November 2018, 01:50:50 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:

Reading the 2018 Ricardian and there is an article by Anne F Sutton in which she mentions a family of Beaumonts of Castle Folkingham. John Viscount Beaumont was killed at Northampton, he was attainted and his estates forfeited, his heir remained hostile and lost his estates in 1471, mostly in Kesteven, they were granted to Hastings. The heir was apparently married to Katherine Neville, dowager Duchess of Norfolk by an earlier marriage and briefly the wife of John Woodville. She was allowed her dower rights. Not sure if this is relevant and maybe it has been mentioned in previous posts. Incidentally the article is about lands held by Richard in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2018-12-03 14:24:19
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Thanks Hilary for the link. There was some speculation with Marie that Isabel Vaux may have been a later second wife, but from this it seems that she was the only one, and therefore the mother of Thomas Tresham and his siblings. That would have made her considerably older than Brampton and Pecche, unless they were older than we assumed. Most Brampton's birthdate is usually estimated at about 1430, but there nothing is really known of his early life.

I can't remember where I first saw Margaret Beaumont as Brampton's second wife, perhaps the source found it in the will.
Nico

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-17 11:56:35
hjnatdat
Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.
Obviously he's in my records as a 1483 rebel and he is of course closely related to quite a few of them - including the John Clifford who was later cited in the Perkin Warbeck affair but somehow got away with it I recall.Because of the armorial devices on his tomb it's always been assumed that William Pecche was married to 'Unknown' Clifford as his wife before Anne Proffitt. Could 'Unknown' Clifford and his divorced wife Isabel be one and the same person - i.e. the widow of William Tresham? Therefore the latter could not be the much older Isabel Vaux.
If she was, and became Brampton's wife, then that would place Brampton right at the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. I know Marie didn't think Brampton would ever countenance the Woodvilles, but after Richard's death the world, and the Yorkist cause, re-aligned. They had to. And it would certainly have put him near the centre of the Warbeck camp. Do we know what he did when he visited here in 1487 and thereafter?

What I don't know is whether the arms of a man's divorced wife could be incorporated on his tomb. Does anyone? H

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-17 22:20:00
Nicholas Brown

Hi Hilary and all,

Great to see the forum back!
I still think that William Vaux could have had two wives - Isabel Vaux and then another Isabel. Also, since the Woodvilles were Brampton's neighbours in Northamptonshire, he must have had some dealings with them. During Edward IV's reign, he would have needed to be nice to them. I will see if I can find anything on John Clifford's wider family and see if there is an Isabel of the right age group.
The question of the tomb is an interesting one, and does present a problem with that Ms. Clifford being the Isabel Pecche who married William Vaux and Edward Brampton. The marriage to William Pecche must have been annulled or nether of them would be free to remarry, which meant that it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would have been unlikely for her to be included on the tomb. It appears more likely that Ms. Clifford died, then he married Anne Proffitt. Nevertheless, since he was paying for the tomb, he could probably include anyone he wished, including a wife from an annulled marriage. This would have been more likely if there were children from the marriage. I thought all his children were from his second wife, but it is possible that there were unrecorded children especially daughters.
One of my Christmas presents was JA-H's Mythology of the Princes in the Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it is excellent and I would definitely recommend it. I just finished the chapter on Richard of Eastwell, and I'm convinced that the Yorkist network in Kent and the City of London has been underestimated, including the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, so I'm still digging.
Nico
On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 11:56:37 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.


Obviously he's in my records as a 1483 rebel and he is of course closely related to quite a few of them - including the John Clifford who was later cited in the Perkin Warbeck affair but somehow got away with it I recall.Because of the armorial devices on his tomb it's always been assumed that William Pecche was married to 'Unknown' Clifford as his wife before Anne Proffitt. Could 'Unknown' Clifford and his divorced wife Isabel be one and the same person - i.e. the widow of William Tresham? Therefore the latter could not be the much older Isabel Vaux.
If she was, and became Brampton's wife, then that would place Brampton right at the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. I know Marie didn't think Brampton would ever countenance the Woodvilles, but after Richard's death the world, and the Yorkist cause, re-aligned. They had to. And it would certainly have put him near the centre of the Warbeck camp. Do we know what he did when he visited here in 1487 and thereafter?

What I don't know is whether the arms of a man's divorced wife could be incorporated on his tomb. Does anyone? H

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-18 11:22:25
Hilary Jones
Hi I got the wrong Clifford re Perkin Warbeck - it was Robert Clifford from the Yorkshire Cliffords. If unknown Clifford's father is John, then that family originated from Tixall, Staffs before Kent. Since both families supplied quite a few rebels my guess is they were related if you dig back enough.
I can tell you a bit about John Clifford as his son William was executed as a 1483 rebel. He was married to Florence St Leger, sister of Thomas and that marriage would have extended his networks into the Guildfords (John Guildford was Edward's Comptroller of the Household) and of course his sister-in-law once removed would have been Edward's sister Anne (who died in 1476) and the Hautes.
We know he had 3 children - Thomas (died 1521), William (mentioned above) and Anne who married Robert Kempe. The Kempes (family of the former Archbishop) also feature quite a bit in this. John also had a niece Margaret who was married to John Gainsford and her daughter married a Culpepper, as did his nephew Alexander, later Sheriff of Kent. All very contagious. I'll do some more digging too. Strangely enough, Thomas St Leger had a sister Isabel who was married to Thomas Milbourne. I wonder when he died? Incidentally, were the St Leger's related to Jacquetta, EW's mother? I see Thomas St Leger's grandmother was Jeanne de Luxembourg (d 1406) daughter of Gilles de Luxembourg?
I agree with both your other points. I think that JAH book was probably the best he ever wrote. Why do no other historians these days do any digging but just regurgitate what others have said?
Since I investigated the rebels I've always believed there to be a tie between the City of London and Kent. These ties probably extended to the Church as well - we have two families of Archbishops - Chicheley and Kempe hailing from the area. And...... I believe they extended to the West Country as well. Both the St Legers, the Moyles and some others who I can't recall at the moment, originated from the West Country. Back to Stillington and his associates there!
Finally, one historian who did dig was the late David Baldwin. I know not everyone likes him but his book on Richard of Eastwell is worth reading if you haven't, even though he doesn't investigate Moyle's background. And he was the first historian to identify Richard's probable burial place some twenty years' ago.
BTW William Peche had two chidren by Unknown Clifford - Elizabeth who married a lawyer John Hart and George Brooke of Cowling and Sir John Peche who married Elizabeth Scrope. Both born late 1460s, early 1470s. He had no children so the line died out.
H


On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 22:20:38 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi Hilary and all,

Great to see the forum back!
I still think that William Vaux could have had two wives - Isabel Vaux and then another Isabel. Also, since the Woodvilles were Brampton's neighbours in Northamptonshire, he must have had some dealings with them. During Edward IV's reign, he would have needed to be nice to them. I will see if I can find anything on John Clifford's wider family and see if there is an Isabel of the right age group.
The question of the tomb is an interesting one, and does present a problem with that Ms. Clifford being the Isabel Pecche who married William Vaux and Edward Brampton. The marriage to William Pecche must have been annulled or nether of them would be free to remarry, which meant that it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would have been unlikely for her to be included on the tomb. It appears more likely that Ms. Clifford died, then he married Anne Proffitt. Nevertheless, since he was paying for the tomb, he could probably include anyone he wished, including a wife from an annulled marriage. This would have been more likely if there were children from the marriage. I thought all his children were from his second wife, but it is possible that there were unrecorded children especially daughters.
One of my Christmas presents was JA-H's Mythology of the Princes in the Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it is excellent and I would definitely recommend it. I just finished the chapter on Richard of Eastwell, and I'm convinced that the Yorkist network in Kent and the City of London has been underestimated, including the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, so I'm still digging.
Nico
On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 11:56:37 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.


Obviously he's in my records as a 1483 rebel and he is of course closely related to quite a few of them - including the John Clifford who was later cited in the Perkin Warbeck affair but somehow got away with it I recall.Because of the armorial devices on his tomb it's always been assumed that William Pecche was married to 'Unknown' Clifford as his wife before Anne Proffitt. Could 'Unknown' Clifford and his divorced wife Isabel be one and the same person - i.e. the widow of William Tresham? Therefore the latter could not be the much older Isabel Vaux.
If she was, and became Brampton's wife, then that would place Brampton right at the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. I know Marie didn't think Brampton would ever countenance the Woodvilles, but after Richard's death the world, and the Yorkist cause, re-aligned. They had to. And it would certainly have put him near the centre of the Warbeck camp. Do we know what he did when he visited here in 1487 and thereafter?

What I don't know is whether the arms of a man's divorced wife could be incorporated on his tomb. Does anyone? H

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-18 21:35:07
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for that Hilary. I will look up the Cliffords, St. Legers etc and see if there are any more links. The Guildford connection is interesting too, especially since it is the same family as Sir Edward Guildford from Leslau's theory.
I did like David Baldwin's books, especially the one about Richard of Eastwell. His research was excellent, and his books were fascinating even if you didn't agree with the conclusion. I was initially sceptical about his idea about Richard of Eastwell, but the more I think about it, he may have been right. I wasn't aware of the Hautes and Moyles and the Kent Yorkist connections at the time I read it.
Nico

On Friday, 18 January 2019, 11:24:54 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi I got the wrong Clifford re Perkin Warbeck - it was Robert Clifford from the Yorkshire Cliffords. If unknown Clifford's father is John, then that family originated from Tixall, Staffs before Kent. Since both families supplied quite a few rebels my guess is they were related if you dig back enough.
I can tell you a bit about John Clifford as his son William was executed as a 1483 rebel. He was married to Florence St Leger, sister of Thomas and that marriage would have extended his networks into the Guildfords (John Guildford was Edward's Comptroller of the Household) and of course his sister-in-law once removed would have been Edward's sister Anne (who died in 1476) and the Hautes.
We know he had 3 children - Thomas (died 1521), William (mentioned above) and Anne who married Robert Kempe. The Kempes (family of the former Archbishop) also feature quite a bit in this. John also had a niece Margaret who was married to John Gainsford and her daughter married a Culpepper, as did his nephew Alexander, later Sheriff of Kent. All very contagious. I'll do some more digging too. Strangely enough, Thomas St Leger had a sister Isabel who was married to Thomas Milbourne. I wonder when he died? Incidentally, were the St Leger's related to Jacquetta, EW's mother? I see Thomas St Leger's grandmother was Jeanne de Luxembourg (d 1406) daughter of Gilles de Luxembourg?
I agree with both your other points. I think that JAH book was probably the best he ever wrote. Why do no other historians these days do any digging but just regurgitate what others have said?
Since I investigated the rebels I've always believed there to be a tie between the City of London and Kent. These ties probably extended to the Church as well - we have two families of Archbishops - Chicheley and Kempe hailing from the area. And...... I believe they extended to the West Country as well. Both the St Legers, the Moyles and some others who I can't recall at the moment, originated from the West Country. Back to Stillington and his associates there!
Finally, one historian who did dig was the late David Baldwin. I know not everyone likes him but his book on Richard of Eastwell is worth reading if you haven't, even though he doesn't investigate Moyle's background. And he was the first historian to identify Richard's probable burial place some twenty years' ago.
BTW William Peche had two chidren by Unknown Clifford - Elizabeth who married a lawyer John Hart and George Brooke of Cowling and Sir John Peche who married Elizabeth Scrope. Both born late 1460s, early 1470s. He had no children so the line died out.
H


On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 22:20:38 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi Hilary and all,

Great to see the forum back!
I still think that William Vaux could have had two wives - Isabel Vaux and then another Isabel. Also, since the Woodvilles were Brampton's neighbours in Northamptonshire, he must have had some dealings with them. During Edward IV's reign, he would have needed to be nice to them. I will see if I can find anything on John Clifford's wider family and see if there is an Isabel of the right age group.
The question of the tomb is an interesting one, and does present a problem with that Ms. Clifford being the Isabel Pecche who married William Vaux and Edward Brampton. The marriage to William Pecche must have been annulled or nether of them would be free to remarry, which meant that it had no legal validity. Therefore, it would have been unlikely for her to be included on the tomb. It appears more likely that Ms. Clifford died, then he married Anne Proffitt. Nevertheless, since he was paying for the tomb, he could probably include anyone he wished, including a wife from an annulled marriage. This would have been more likely if there were children from the marriage. I thought all his children were from his second wife, but it is possible that there were unrecorded children especially daughters.
One of my Christmas presents was JA-H's Mythology of the Princes in the Tower. I haven't finished it yet, but it is excellent and I would definitely recommend it. I just finished the chapter on Richard of Eastwell, and I'm convinced that the Yorkist network in Kent and the City of London has been underestimated, including the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, so I'm still digging.
Nico
On Thursday, 17 January 2019, 11:56:37 GMT, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger.


Obviously he's in my records as a 1483 rebel and he is of course closely related to quite a few of them - including the John Clifford who was later cited in the Perkin Warbeck affair but somehow got away with it I recall.Because of the armorial devices on his tomb it's always been assumed that William Pecche was married to 'Unknown' Clifford as his wife before Anne Proffitt. Could 'Unknown' Clifford and his divorced wife Isabel be one and the same person - i.e. the widow of William Tresham? Therefore the latter could not be the much older Isabel Vaux.
If she was, and became Brampton's wife, then that would place Brampton right at the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. I know Marie didn't think Brampton would ever countenance the Woodvilles, but after Richard's death the world, and the Yorkist cause, re-aligned. They had to. And it would certainly have put him near the centre of the Warbeck camp. Do we know what he did when he visited here in 1487 and thereafter?

What I don't know is whether the arms of a man's divorced wife could be incorporated on his tomb. Does anyone? H

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-19 17:30:39
ricard1an
I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-19 22:31:16
Nicholas Brown
Hilary, I had a chance to take a look at the Cliffords. An article by the Kent Archeological Society says that William Pecche's first wife's name was Jane and that coat of arms on her tomb matched the Clifford family. If that is correct it would rule out her being Isabel Brampton, but she would have been related to William Clifford the 1483 rebel. The Cliffords hadn't been in Kent for many generations so there can't have been that many of them. I haven't found exactly where she fits in yet, but it is another Kent rebellion link.

Gilles de Luxembourg and Jacquetta were from different branches of the Luxembourg royal family, and were not closely related. Gilles was from an illegitimate line.
Mary, I used to think that the Leslau's idea about Edward V being transformed into Sir Edward Guildford was far fetched, but Matthew Lewis gave men a more open mind in his book 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower.' I had thought it unlikely that a teenage son could suddenly appear in a family with no questions asked, but if he 'replaced' a son who died, maybe it was possible at the time. However, J-AH does makes some interesting points suggesting that Edward V died around August 1483, and had been ill for some time.

Nico

On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 17:31:48 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-19 23:00:02
ricard1an
I agree about Matthew's book. I also read JAH's book and that is convincing too. Though we can't be sure of either of the theories.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-19 23:08:14
ricard1an
Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-20 10:57:18
Hilary Jones
Hi both. I'm with JAH on the Edward bit. You have to look at what other kings of roughly Edward's age were doing - Edward III was getting rid of Mortimer and Isabella, Richard II was riding out to greet Watt Tyler, Edward VI was writing the equivalent of his memoirs at the age of 9. In those weeks after his accession our Edward doesn't leave a stamp on anything that has stayed in the common memory, only that dodgy signature. He wasn't two, you'd have expected him to have made some contribution, if only to upset someone.
Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.
With regard to either or both of the princes staying or going, I have always believed Richard would have kept them at home, where he could keep an eye on them. And Burgundy was torn by war and plague with Margaret having no real power any longer. Why send a child there? There's also the precedent of young Warwick, who was I believe under the guardianship of his aunt Anne in Yorkshire. After Richard is killed it becomes an entirely different thing of course and one does wonder whether the City of London with its trade links who was able to spirit one or both away.
Digressing a little, before Christmas I put out a post on Alice Burgh, who I found in the Fine Rolls in 1481 and 1484 in the 'pay' of Edward of Warwick, so that is why I assume Alison Weir has her as his nurse. The famous payment to 'my beloved gentlewoman for 'special considerations' is made in 1474 so did Alice become his nurse when he moved under the guardianship of his Aunt? Very strange to have the Duchess employing someone who had been her husband's mistress! But there is one other thing. Warwick and a 'bastard son' King Richard are executed at the same time. Did John of Gloucester and Edward Warwick grow up together, or if it wasn't JOG was it another child of Richard?
BTW Alice's name is spelled Borough which makes it more likely that she is from the Burghs/Boroughs of Catterick where indeed there was an Alice who became Prioress of Ellerton. Sir Thomas Burgh of Gainsborough's name is sometimes spelled like that, but far less so than the Catterick Boroughs.. H
PS And I do have time for Leslau, just because we can't prove certain bits doesn't discredit the whole.
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 22:31:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I had a chance to take a look at the Cliffords. An article by the Kent Archeological Society says that William Pecche's first wife's name was Jane and that coat of arms on her tomb matched the Clifford family. If that is correct it would rule out her being Isabel Brampton, but she would have been related to William Clifford the 1483 rebel. The Cliffords hadn't been in Kent for many generations so there can't have been that many of them. I haven't found exactly where she fits in yet, but it is another Kent rebellion link.

Gilles de Luxembourg and Jacquetta were from different branches of the Luxembourg royal family, and were not closely related. Gilles was from an illegitimate line.
Mary, I used to think that the Leslau's idea about Edward V being transformed into Sir Edward Guildford was far fetched, but Matthew Lewis gave men a more open mind in his book 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower.' I had thought it unlikely that a teenage son could suddenly appear in a family with no questions asked, but if he 'replaced' a son who died, maybe it was possible at the time. However, J-AH does makes some interesting points suggesting that Edward V died around August 1483, and had been ill for some time.

Nico

On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 17:31:48 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-20 10:58:23
Hilary Jones
Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of Lon

2019-01-20 23:42:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Just a thought about Brampton being right in the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. First off, just what do you mean by early 1480s? Before Edward IV's death or after? Another thought that struck me concerns how various contemporaries viewed Edward IV's children. I'm now of the belief that Hastings tended to view Edward's children as to how they affected his [Hastings] position/properties. But it's entirely possible for someone, such as Brampton, to have a sense of loyalty towards Edward's children solely because they were Edward's children, and not because of any political opportunities they may have offered, isn't it? I do find it interesting, though, that after Richard's death, the Yorkists first supported Edward of Warwick, then Perkin/Richard, before settling on the de la Poles as the inheritors of the Yorkist mantle. Perhaps support for Perkin/Warbeck was based on the presumption that if the Lancastrians could offer someone with no legitimate claim to the throne other than by conquest, they could do the same? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico, I did have a thought over Christmas. It was prompted by Carol's reference to Thomas St Leger. Obviously he's in my records as a 1483 rebel and he is of course closely related to quite a few of them - including the John Clifford who was later cited in the Perkin Warbeck affair but somehow got away with it I recall. Because of the armorial devices on his tomb it's always been assumed that William Pecche was married to 'Unknown' Clifford as his wife before Anne Proffitt. Could 'Unknown' Clifford and his divorced wife Isabel be one and the same person - i.e. the widow of William Tresham? Therefore the latter could not be the much older Isabel Vaux.
If she was, and became Brampton's wife, then that would place Brampton right at the middle of the Woodville set in the early 1480s. I know Marie didn't think Brampton would ever count enance the Woodvilles, but after Richard's death the world, and the Yorkist cause, re-aligned. They had to. And it would certainly have put him near the centre of the Warbeck camp. Do we know what he did when he visited here in 1487 and thereafter? What I don't know is whether the arms of a man's divorced wife could be incorporated on his tomb. Does anyone?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-20 23:52:17
Doug Stamate
Mary, FWIW, I can't see Richard, or any monarch for that matter, sending a former king out of the country  even for his own protection. I sometimes wonder if the idea of both boys being sent out of the country wasn't simply because no one knew what exactly had happened to Edward, while they did know, or suspected with good reason, that Richard had been? And, of course, having people spend time and effort trying to find Edward somewhere on the Continent when he was actually somewhere in England would make him that much safer. Doug Mary wrote: I was wondering about the Guildford connection too after reading Hilary's post. Hilary said that he was Comptroller of Edward's household so my thought was that he would be an ideal person to look after young Edward. Is it possible that Edward never left the country and maybe the bits of information we have a about going to Burgundy to Aunt Margaret were meant to put people off the scent?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-21 00:03:57
Doug Stamate
Nico, Not to be too much of a spoil=sport, but just how many people would have to be in on any plan to substitute one healthy teen-age boy for a sick teen-age boy? There'd be parents and household servants. Then there's the neighbors and anyone who worked on the estate outside' (I think that's the term for gardeners/grooms/etc.). Then there'd be those people who might not live nearby, but would either visit or be visited by the family. That's a lot of people to try and fool. Doug Who, for all the respect he has for Dr. Ashdown-Hill's writings, still believes Edward survived well past August, 1483. Nico wrote: Hilary, I had a chance to take a look at the Cliffords. An article by the Kent Archeological Society says that William Pecche's first wife's name was Jane and that coat of arms on her tomb matched the Clifford family. If that is correct it would rule out her being Isabel Brampton, but she would have been related to William Clifford the 1483 rebel. The Cliffords hadn't been in Kent for many generations so there can't have been that many of them. I haven't found exactly where she fits in yet, but it is another Kent rebellion link. Gilles de Luxembourg and Jacquetta were from different branches of the Luxembourg royal family, and were not closely related. Gilles was from an illegitimate line. Mary, I used to think that the Leslau's idea about Edward V being transformed into Sir Edward Guildford was far fetched, but Matthew Lewis gave men a more open mind in his book 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower.' I ha d thought it unlikely that a teenage son could suddenly appear in a family with no questions asked, but if he 'replaced' a son who died, maybe it was possible at the time. However, J-AH does makes some interesting points suggesting that Edward V died around August 1483, and had been ill for some time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-21 10:12:46
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I agree with you. It would be a big problem, which is why I was initially completely dismissive and still remain sceptical of that theory of Leslau's. As interesting Matthew Lewis' articles was (and I don't think he completely endorses it either), the logistics of turning Edward V into Edward Guildford are overwhelming. The Guildfords would have had many friends, acquaintances and employees. Someone surely would have spilled the beans. Nico


Doug wrote: Not to be too much of a spoil=sport, but just how many people would have to be in on any plan to substitute one healthy teen-age boy for a sick teen-age boy? There'd be parents and household servants. Then there's the neighbors and anyone who worked on the estate outside' (I think that's the term for gardeners/grooms/etc.). Then there'd be those people who might not live nearby, but would either visit or be visited by the family. That's a lot of people to try and fool.


On Monday, 21 January 2019, 00:04:04 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Not to be too much of a spoil=sport, but just how many people would have to be in on any plan to substitute one healthy teen-age boy for a sick teen-age boy? There'd be parents and household servants. Then there's the neighbors and anyone who worked on the estate outside' (I think that's the term for gardeners/grooms/etc.). Then there'd be those people who might not live nearby, but would either visit or be visited by the family. That's a lot of people to try and fool. Doug Who, for all the respect he has for Dr. Ashdown-Hill's writings, still believes Edward survived well past August, 1483. Nico wrote: Hilary, I had a chance to take a look at the Cliffords. An article by the Kent Archeological Society says that William Pecche's first wife's name was Jane and that coat of arms on her tomb matched the Clifford family. If that is correct it would rule out her being Isabel Brampton, but she would have been related to William Clifford the 1483 rebel. The Cliffords hadn't been in Kent for many generations so there can't have been that many of them. I haven't found exactly where she fits in yet, but it is another Kent rebellion link. Gilles de Luxembourg and Jacquetta were from different branches of the Luxembourg royal family, and were not closely related. Gilles was from an illegitimate line. Mary, I used to think that the Leslau's idea about Edward V being transformed into Sir Edward Guildford was far fetched, but Matthew Lewis gave men a more open mind in his book 'The Survival of the Princes in the Tower.' I ha d thought it unlikely that a teenage son could suddenly appear in a family with no questions asked, but if he 'replaced' a son who died, maybe it was possible at the time. However, J-AH does makes some interesting points suggesting that Edward V died around August 1483, and had been ill for some time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-21 11:20:59
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-21 11:30:50
Nicholas Brown

Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-21 11:58:47
Nicholas Brown
Digressing a little, before Christmas I put out a post on Alice Burgh, who I found in the Fine Rolls in 1481 and 1484 in the 'pay' of Edward of Warwick, so that is why I assume Alison Weir has her as his nurse. The famous payment to 'my beloved gentlewoman for 'special considerations' is made in 1474 so did Alice become his nurse when he moved under the guardianship of his Aunt? Very strange to have the Duchess employing someone who had been her husband's mistress! But there is one other thing. Warwick and a 'bastard son' King Richard are executed at the same time. Did John of Gloucester and Edward Warwick grow up together, or if it wasn't JOG was it another child of Richard?

I also find it rather odd that Anne Neville would appoint Richard's mistress as Edward of Warwick's nurse, so I think it most likely that Alice Burgh may have been an old family retainer who looked after a number of children in the family over many years, and that was why she was given such a generous pension (a bit like that Jacob Rhys Mogg's nanny).
However, that is an interesting note about the execution of John of Gloucester and Edward of Warwick. It is possible that they grew up together and likely that they knew each other, but I have always found Buck's reference here regarding the alleged execution of John of Gloucester confusing, as there is no reference to JoG being involved in any plots. As a known person associated with the House of York, I would think that if Henry executed him, it would make sense to make it public knowledge, firstly as a warning to would be conspirators, and secondly, so nobody else could impersonate him. My guess is that in this case, Buck may have got some oral tradition that had been handed down his family mixed up with Ralph Wilford. I'm still trying to find out more about him, but he was too young to be JoG. I wonder if he had been claiming to be an illegitimate son of Richard or perhaps Clarence, hence the bizarre references to the Warwick inheritance.
Richard only recognized John and Katherine as his illegitimate children, but can we really rule out the fact that there may have been others from that alone? We are aware of them because he gave them specific roles. If there were others, they may not have old enough for a position of such responsibility or Richard may have been less familiar with them. They need not have been born during his marriage to Anne, just probably between about 1470 and 1474 - still too old be Ralph Wilford though.
Nico
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:30:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

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

2019-01-21 13:08:43
Doug Stamate
Nico, The basic problem is that we really don't know just how much Edward wanted to remain king, do we? And we only have a limited number of example of dethroned English kings to go by. Edward II, from all I've read, might very well have been quite happy to lose himself among the population; Richard II, not so much. Henry VI had always been king, but even so he might have been willing to retire to a monastery (as an honored noble guest, of course)  at least during the early part of his reign. Charles II was king in name only until May 1660, but afterwards showed his determination to remain on the throne he'd finally gotten; while his brother, James II, was also determined to return, although that determination was buttressed by his desire to return England to Catholicism. So, when it comes to trying to discover exactly what happened to Edward V we have to keep in mind the possibility that, after the possibly traumatic occurrences of his very short reign, he may have made the decision that he didn't want to be king and had a near-perfect way out. If everyone thought him to be dead, then that's what he'd be  as Edward. Much would depend, of course, on how close he was to his family but, if Wikipedia is anywhere near accurate, he was established as Prince of Wales at Ludlow in 1473 when he was only two, so his relationships with his family may have been tenuous (to say the least). AFAIK, any relationship with his brother Richard would have dated from when they both were in London in the late Spring of 1483. Any relationships with the remaining members of his immediate family would have to come from any visits made by him to Court or by them to Ludlow. I know there's references to his mother going to Ludlow (perhaps when he first went there?), but none of his father. Basically then, he'd have been on his own since, well, forever. Any loyalties he may have developed would likely have been with Vaughan or Rivers, or so I'd imagine. Anyway, it's a very interesting problem to consider. Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, I agree with you. It would be a big problem, which is why I was initially completely dismissive and still remain sceptical of that theory of Leslau's. As interesting Matthew Lewis' articles was (and I don't think he completely endorses it either), the logistics of turning Edward V into Edward Guildford are overwhelming. The Guildfords would have had many friends, acquaintances and employees. Someone surely would have spilled the beans.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-22 10:31:00
Hilary Jones
Where I'm getting to is the JRM route as well. The Burghs of Catterick were in the Neville affinity before that of Richard. The Richard who entered Warwick's household in about 1465/6 would have been no easy charge. He was in the early stage of adolescent scoliosis he'd had exile and loss of a father at an early age, he was religious so he must have thought the scoliosis some sign from God and he was having to prove himself, as the King's brother, against the other henchmen in the household. I think Warwick gets very little credit for the sensible, brave and talented young man he produced. Richard wouldn't have needed a 'nurse' but he could well have needed someone with nursing skills for the 'bad days' - after all people then didn't know what scoliosis was.
So I reckon this is where Alice fits in and indeed it does chime with her later becoming a Prioress. And she is ten years' older than Richard. Later when young Warwick moves North she is called up to help out with him. I don't think she can have been in the Clarence household - there's no mention of her in the Twynyho affair. If you think about it 1474 is the time when Richard has consolidated his acquisition of the Northern Warwick estates and is married. It's just the time to reward 'nurse' Alice er not to slap his new bride in the face by giving a pension to his mistress.
It makes much more sense like this, though it doesn't bring us any closer to the mother/s of Richard's children. H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:58:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Digressing a little, before Christmas I put out a post on Alice Burgh, who I found in the Fine Rolls in 1481 and 1484 in the 'pay' of Edward of Warwick, so that is why I assume Alison Weir has her as his nurse. The famous payment to 'my beloved gentlewoman for 'special considerations' is made in 1474 so did Alice become his nurse when he moved under the guardianship of his Aunt? Very strange to have the Duchess employing someone who had been her husband's mistress! But there is one other thing. Warwick and a 'bastard son' King Richard are executed at the same time. Did John of Gloucester and Edward Warwick grow up together, or if it wasn't JOG was it another child of Richard?

I also find it rather odd that Anne Neville would appoint Richard's mistress as Edward of Warwick's nurse, so I think it most likely that Alice Burgh may have been an old family retainer who looked after a number of children in the family over many years, and that was why she was given such a generous pension (a bit like that Jacob Rhys Mogg's nanny).
However, that is an interesting note about the execution of John of Gloucester and Edward of Warwick. It is possible that they grew up together and likely that they knew each other, but I have always found Buck's reference here regarding the alleged execution of John of Gloucester confusing, as there is no reference to JoG being involved in any plots. As a known person associated with the House of York, I would think that if Henry executed him, it would make sense to make it public knowledge, firstly as a warning to would be conspirators, and secondly, so nobody else could impersonate him. My guess is that in this case, Buck may have got some oral tradition that had been handed down his family mixed up with Ralph Wilford. I'm still trying to find out more about him, but he was too young to be JoG. I wonder if he had been claiming to be an illegitimate son of Richard or perhaps Clarence, hence the bizarre references to the Warwick inheritance.
Richard only recognized John and Katherine as his illegitimate children, but can we really rule out the fact that there may have been others from that alone? We are aware of them because he gave them specific roles. If there were others, they may not have old enough for a position of such responsibility or Richard may have been less familiar with them. They need not have been born during his marriage to Anne, just probably between about 1470 and 1474 - still too old be Ralph Wilford though.
Nico
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:30:23 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-22 10:36:21
Hilary Jones
I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-22 11:18:16
Nicholas Brown
I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

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

2019-01-22 12:10:50
Nicholas Brown
I have considered that as a possibility, and wouldn't rule it out. If Edward V had chosen a religious vocation, then he could have disappeared into that. I have also thought it possible that he may have been happy to be relieved of the obligation to be King of England, especially after the turmoil of 1483 and made it clear that he didn't wish to pursue any claims to the throne. If EV was still alive in the 1490s, Perkin Warbeck had to come up with a story that he had died to pursue his own claims. Until the JA-H book, I tended to favour this theory, but the date of the Sistine Chapel mass for 'King Edward' that connects to the Anlaby Cartulary, a reference that translates as 'the late' King Edward along with the reports of him being sickly make me think that he may well have died in the late summer of 1483 (probably 23 July or 23 August.)
The theory that Edward V transformed himself into Erasmus is a little known but rather compelling one. It is from a now out of print book by a woman who claimed to be a psychic channelling Edward. It isn't particularly well written, full of typos and the author has at best a shaky understanding of the historical background. However, she did do some research, and while I couldn't find anything in a the biography of Erasmus that she used as a source or the account that he gave of his own life in the 1520s that would make me to independently think he was Edward V, she had some good insights and was right that Erasmus was evasive and deliberately obscured details of his early life, even refusing to speak any language other than Latin. Was this an eccentricity or a deliberate ruse to disguise the fact that he wasn't a native Flemish speaker and his English was too good for a foreigner? There may have been other reasons for this, but like John Clement, he rose to high positions and friendships with important people that were far beyond the expectations of the modest origins that he claimed (and can't be verified). As wild as it all sounds I have an open mind. Even if he wasn't Erasmus, the Church would still have been the best place to hide Edward V.
Nico On Monday, 21 January 2019, 13:08:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, The basic problem is that we really don't know just how much Edward wanted to remain king, do we? And we only have a limited number of example of dethroned English kings to go by. Edward II, from all I've read, might very well have been quite happy to lose himself among the population; Richard II, not so much. Henry VI had always been king, but even so he might have been willing to retire to a monastery (as an honored noble guest, of course)  at least during the early part of his reign. Charles II was king in name only until May 1660, but afterwards showed his determination to remain on the throne he'd finally gotten; while his brother, James II, was also determined to return, although that determination was buttressed by his desire to return England to Catholicism. So, when it comes to trying to discover exactly what happened to Edward V we have to keep in mind the possibility that, after the possibly traumatic occurrences of his very short reign, he may have made the decision that he didn't want to be king and had a near-perfect way out. If everyone thought him to be dead, then that's what he'd be  as Edward. Much would depend, of course, on how close he was to his family but, if Wikipedia is anywhere near accurate, he was established as Prince of Wales at Ludlow in 1473 when he was only two, so his relationships with his family may have been tenuous (to say the least). AFAIK, any relationship with his brother Richard would have dated from when they both were in London in the late Spring of 1483. Any relationships with the remaining members of his immediate family would have to come from any visits made by him to Court or by them to Ludlow. I know there's references to his mother going to Ludlow (perhaps when he first went there?), but none of his father. Basically then, he'd have been on his own since, well, forever. Any loyalties he may have developed would likely have been with Vaughan or Rivers, or so I'd imagine. Anyway, it's a very interesting problem to consider. Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, I agree with you. It would be a big problem, which is why I was initially completely dismissive and still remain sceptical of that theory of Leslau's.. As interesting Matthew Lewis' articles was (and I don't think he completely endorses it either), the logistics of turning Edward V into Edward Guildford are overwhelming. The Guildfords would have had many friends, acquaintances and employees. Someone surely would have spilled the beans.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-22 12:33:40
Nicholas Brown
I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

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

2019-01-22 17:12:03
ricard1an
It is quite likely that Edward might not have wanted to be King. Do we have any record of his training at Ludlow? Did he have any military training? Anthony was apparently good at jousting but his record of fighting in battles appears to be a bit thin, so maybe he didn't consider it necessary to train Edward militarily. If Edward had some sort of illness as well he may not have wanted to be king.
I could also see that if that was the case then the Church would be a good place to hide Edward. The whole point of them disappearing was to safeguard them from the people who might have wanted to destroy them. I think that it is possible the" rescue attempt" in July 1483 could well have been MB trying to eliminate all the people who had a better claim to the throne than her son.I believe that it was her half brother who was involved. If Richard was making sure that they were safe there would only be a few people who would know about their whereabouts. Secrecy would be paramount.
Mary

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

2019-01-23 02:07:09
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I have considered that as a possibility, and wouldn't rule it out. If Edward V had chosen a religious vocation, then he could have disappeared into that. I have also thought it possible that he may have been happy to be relieved of the obligation to be King of England, especially after the turmoil of 1483 and made it clear that he didn't wish to pursue any claims to the throne. If EV was still alive in the 1490s, Perkin Warbeck had to come up with a story that he had died to pursue his own claims. Until the JA-H book, I tended to favour this theory, but the date of the Sistine Chapel mass for 'King Edward' that connects to the Anlaby Cartulary, a reference that translates as 'the late' King Edward along with the reports of him being sickly make me think that he may well have died in the late summer of 1483 (probably 23 July or 23 August.) Doug here: IMO, Edward hiding out in a religious community, regardless of whether he ever took orders or not, would make sense for 12 year-old who may have been, literally, cast adrift by the outcome at Bosworth. We also have to remember that he almost certainly would have lacked the information needed to get into contact with any of the remaining prominent Yorkists. If, as I think likely, the danger to his very life that Tudor represented had been well drilled into him, he'd dare not risk just walking up to wherever his mother or grandmother were living and announce his arrival. As far as he'd know, any guards would have been hired by Tudor and on the look-out for anyone who fitted his description. So, or so it seems to me, the church would be the most likely alternative as a hiding place. In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/nhi.1992.28.1.213?journalCode=ynhi20 Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine (sp?). Perhaps we're focusing too much on that Dr. whose attendance on them because of their their rank (illegitimate perhaps, but still the children of a king) wouldn't be all that unusual. Or would it? Then there'd they'd also have been servants assigned to them, possibly their own tutor or priest doing double duty, as well as people to clean their clothing and rooms. Yet we hear nothing from all those people who, or so it seems to me, would also have noticed if Edward was ailing and, more importantly, would have been in an excellent position to spread news about the boys. Nico continued: The theory that Edward V transformed himself into Erasmus is a little known but rather compelling one. It is from a now out of print book by a woman who claimed to be a psychic channelling Edward. It isn't particularly well written, full of typos and the author has at best a shaky understanding of the historical background. However, she did do some research, and while I couldn't find anything in a the biography of Erasmus that she used as a source or the account that he gave of his own life in the 1520s that would make me to independently think he was Edward V, she had some good insights and was right that Erasmus was evasive and deliberately obscured details of his early life, even refusing to speak any language other than Latin. Was this an eccentricity or a deliberate ruse to disguise the fact that he wasn't a native Flemish speaker and his English was too good for a foreigner? There may have been other reasons for this, but like John Clement, he rose to high positions and friendships with important people that were far beyond the expectations of the modest origins that he claimed (and can't be verified). As wild as it all sounds I have an open mind. Even if he wasn't Erasmus, the Church would still have been the best place to hide Edward V. Doug here: If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor. 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: [Richard III Societ

2019-01-23 16:16:29
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: It is quite likely that Edward might not have wanted to be King. Do we have any record of his training at Ludlow? Did he have any military training? Anthony was apparently good at jousting but his record of fighting in battles appears to be a bit thin, so maybe he didn't consider it necessary to train Edward militarily. If Edward had some sort of illness as well he may not have wanted to be king. Doug here: Such records as we have don't show Rivers spending very much time at Ludlow, I understand. FWIW, my over-all impression of Rivers is that he was a dilettante, with little desire to master any particular field  including seeing to the education of Edward. My understanding is that it was Thomas Vaughan who was in residence at Ludlow and responsible for the day-to-day activities regarding Edward's education. The thing is, Vaughan was born in 1410 and would have been 65 in 1475 when he was appointed Edward's Chamberlain. So we're left with the person responsible for Edward's education rarely showing up to see how things are progressing and the person who was actually there and likely supervising Edward's education starting his job at the age when, nowadays, he'd be putting his feet up in a well-earned retirement. While the instructions from Edward IV regarding his son's education sound very impressive and thorough, what would have mattered, or so it seems to me, is just how well those instructions were carried out. And on the few occasions when young Edward saw his parents between 1475 and 1483, I have problems imagining either sitting down with him to see how well his education was going; for that they'd rely on Vaughan and Rivers, who couldn't exactly be described as impartial. Mary concluded:  I could also see that if that was the case then the Church would be a good place to hide Edward. The whole point of them disappearing was to safeguard them from the people who might have wanted to destroy them. I think that it is possible the" rescue attempt" in July 1483 could well have been MB trying to eliminate all the people who had a better claim to the throne than her son.I believe that it was her half brother who was involved. If Richard was making sure that they were safe there would only be a few people who would know about their whereabouts. Secrecy would be paramount. Doug here: Again it's only my opinion, but I rather think that using the Church as a hiding place would only have been considered as a temporary solution until he could have been taken overseas; if not directly place in his aunt's care, then at least some place she knew about. While I do think there was an attempt to get the boys out of the Tower during the late summer of 1483, I'm still uncertain as to who was behind it. I tend to think that it at least started as a genuine attempt to get Edward and Richard out of the Tower and put them at the head of the rebellion that was forming. Now, whether or not MB or Buckingham had any other intentions, I can't say for sure. If I was forced to choose someone with possible ulterior motives, my money would be on Buckingham, though. One of the things I find interesting about the Richard of Eastwell story is that he was supposedly part of a what was, for want of a better term, a construction crew/company. Now, buildings in this period weren't only built of wood or stone, the use of brick was becoming more prevalent as the need for stout stone walls for protection diminished. It's also my understanding that brickmaking, and the use of bricks in construction, was a specialty of the Low Countries (I don't think I'm mixing up the times). While I don't know if there was a trade in bricks themselves between England and the Low Countries, there'd almost certainly be an exchange of ideas/information on the use of bricks in building. At any rate, it would make sense to attach Edward to someone whose occupation took them to and from the Low Countries. 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: [Richard III Societ

2019-01-23 17:12:59
ricard1an
It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.
Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at.
I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side.
Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
Mary

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

2019-01-23 21:28:16
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn.

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.


Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at.
I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side.
Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
Mary

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

2019-01-24 11:20:45
Hilary Jones
Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household.
Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12Cecily 39Margaret 7 months Anne 36George 2 Katherine 48Bridget 37
Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV.
So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know.
So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager!
Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything?
Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre. H

On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 21:28:21 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.


Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at.
I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side.
Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-24 11:48:07
Hilary Jones
Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below:
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483

There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow.
Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Thomas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think).
So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know? H
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 13:14:07 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-24 22:40:01
Doug Stamate
Mary, In another post Hilary has Vaughan as most likely being in his mid-fifties, which isn't quite so eyebrow-raising. Rivers seems to have viewed his appointment as a sinecure, although there may have been correspondence concerning his duties that's since gone missing. Vaughan was apparently well-trusted by Edward IV as Wikipedia has him appointed as Treasurer of the King's Chamber and Master of the King's Jewels in 1465 and then employed as an Ambassador to France and Burgundy, as well as helping negotiate Margaret's marriage to the Duke of Burgundy in 1468. Then the article says Vaughan was knighted on the same day Edward was made Prince of Wale, then becoming young Edward's Chamberlain. The article also has Vaughan elected to Parliament in 1478 as a knight of the shire from Cornwall. Vaughan apparently married Eleanor Arundel sometime after her first husband, a Sir Thomas Browne, was executed in 1460 for treason. I couldn't discover what the exact charge against Browne was. At any rate, and lacking more information about just how the Prince of Wale's establishment at Ludlow operated, Vaughan seems to have been qualified for the appointment As for what Edward IV expected in the way of training and education for his son at Ludlow, for that we'd need to know who was appointed to what position there. Well, unless Edward left everything in Rivers' and Vaughan's hands, anyway. The same would apply to whether or not Edward was known to be sickly. Surely, if that was the case, there'd have been previous notice of young Edward's health (or lack of it) that would have trickled out into public knowledge; yet the only medical doctor we have note of is Argentine in late Spring/early Summer 1483. Other than extended periods on horseback directly leading troops, much of the rest of what was required of a medieval monarch could be done by competent appointees (finding such appointees may have been a completely different matter). Doug Mary wrote: It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly. Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at. I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side. Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
--
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

2019-01-25 00:07:01
Doug Stamate
Nico,
Do you have the exact terms of Richard's call for assistance to Howard on 22 July, 1483? Was it an actual request for assistance or, possibly, something more along the lines of Richard wanting Howard to hurry with all speed to wherever Richard was? I ask because Howard was created Duke of Norfolk on 28 June, 1483, when he was also appointed Earl Marshal and Lord Admiral. Considering the loyalty Howard had shown to the House of York, I would think Richard just might want to make those presentations in person. As for that 22 June/22 July date, wasn't 22 June supposed to have been the day of Edward V's coronation? Perhaps the annotator simply presumed that if Edward wasn't crowned on that date he must have been dead?
I wonder if the scheduling of the dates of requiem masses for Louis XI and Edward IV weren't merely the result of what, when one forgets something, my sister terms a senior moment? IOW, it was expected that a requiem mass for Edward IV would be the first held in the newly-renovated Sistine Chapel, but whoever did the scheduling instead made arrangements for a requiem mass for Louis XI and, only once the arrangements were underway, realized that a requiem mass for Edward IV hadn't yet occurred and then scheduled one for after the one for Louis?
The problem with any signature of Edward V is that we really don't know how his days at Ludlow were actually spent. Did his tutor/s concentrate on ensuring that Edward would be fitted for his duties, or did they look n their position being more of sinecure than anything else. As best we can tell, Rivers, Edward's official Governor, didn't spend much time there and, while Vaughan may have been ace at keeping track of inanimate valuables, was he really up to enforcing the rules laid down for Edward's day-to-day activities? In fact, considering Vaughan's previous appointments, I wonder if his duties at Ludlow weren't more on the lines of security than anything else. After all, it was Rivers who'd been charged with over-seeing young Edward's education/training, not Vaughan.
Apparently St. Erasmus was also known as St. Elmo, the patron saint of sailors. The Wikipedia article on him ends with the following sentence:
Besides his patronage of mariners, Erasmus is invoked against colic in children, abdominal pain, intestinal ailments and diseases, cramps and the pain of women in labor, as well as cattle pests.
I think we can forget that very last as a reason for Elizabeth Woodville building a chapel to him in Westminster Abbey, but the penultimate one just might be.
I found another link:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Castles_of_England/Tudor_Castles
that has brick-making returning to England in the 14th century, which would be the 1300s, I believe. It also had the use of brick being concentrated in southeastern England so that would explain Richard of Eastwell being where he was.
My views on what happened to young Edward are that he survived at least until sometime after August 1485. He may very well have succumbed during that outbreak of the sweating sickness and, because he was in hiding, it wasn't possible for his death to be recorded as it should have been; viz., as the son of Edward IV. I also find it extremely difficult to come up with any reason for his death not being officially noted had it occurred at any time during his uncle's reign. Since no one ever attempted to claim the throne as Edward V, that tells me that either he died sometime before the Warbeck affair or else simply remained in hiding, preferring anonymity to risking his life for a position he'd decided, for whatever reason, he didn't particularly want. Unfortunately, neither case allows for an easy solution...
Doug
Nico wrote:
In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.


Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.


Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.



It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..



If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.


There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.


I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.



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



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-25 13:08:08
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, I think the author of the article in your link meant that Vaughan was acting on behalf od Edward, not Margaret of Anjou. I had to read the sentence several times before I realized that, while the men and treasure originated in London, the ship had sailed from Antwerp. It does appears to me, however, that except for his association with Jasper Tudor, Vaughan seems to have been a life-long Yorkist. FWIW, that attempt by Vaughan et al to take that treasure from London to Ireland sounds to me as if they were aiming to turn it over to the Yorkists, with Edward IV's later actions in securing their release adding support to the idea. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below: https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483 There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow. Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Tho mas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think). So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know?
--
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

2019-01-25 21:52:18
Nicholas Brown
Do you have the exact terms of Richard's call for assistance to Howard on 22 July, 1483? Was it an actual request for assistance or, possibly, something more along the lines of Richard wanting Howard to hurry with all speed to wherever Richard was?
I isn't clear exactly what happened, but it coincides with the Tower rescue attempt. J-AH wrote that when Richard set off on a tour of the realm on July 21, his party included John Howard and Buckingham, but 'a crisis of some kind then seems to have arisen in London, and Richard sent Howard back to the capital to deal with the situation for him.' He says that there may have been 3 attempts to assault the Tower. Howard stayed at Crosby's Place, Richard's pied-at-terre, which indicates that his service in London was on the the King's behalf. On July 29, Richard issued a warrant to the Lord Chancellor informing him some people had been arrested after 'an enterprise.' According to a contemporary account by a French bishop named Basin and John Stow (16th century) there was a plot by Londoners at the time. Stow mentions diversionary fires around the Tower and names those arrested. If Edward died around this time, it may have been as a result of being injured in a rescue attempt.
Perhaps the annotator simply presumed that if Edward wasn't crowned on that date he must have been dead?
While who ever compiled the chart may have made that assumption, it does seem a very specific reference to the fact that he died, when there is no date for Richard of Shrewsbury (only that he died young).
I wonder if the scheduling of the dates of requiem masses for Louis XI and Edward IV weren't merely the result of what, when one forgets something, my sister terms a senior moment? IOW, it was expected that a requiem mass for Edward IV would be the first held in the newly-renovated Sistine Chapel, but whoever did the scheduling instead made arrangements for a requiem mass for Louis XI and, only once the arrangements were underway, realized that a requiem mass for Edward IV hadn't yet occurred and then scheduled one for after the one for Louis?
It is always possible that it could have been an error and the Anlaby date and the unrest in around the Tower are just co-incidences. I would also be interested to know if a requiem at some other time for Edward IV can be definitely ruled out, as I can't imagine a Papal mass for Edward V if there hadn't been one for his father. I would have thought however that if Louis' was arranged within two weeks, Edward IV's would have been arranged by May in some other Church in Rome.

The problem with any signature of Edward V is that we really don't know how his days at Ludlow were actually spent. Did his tutor/s concentrate on ensuring that Edward would be fitted for his duties, or did they look n their position being more of sinecure than anything else.
That is hard to say. The details that we have for EV's life at Ludlow are outlined in Hicks' book, but some of the instructions and documents that we rely on date from the 1470s. There may have been changes in routines to accommodate EV's health that are not recorded.
One thing we do know is that Edward IV kept on top of administrative matters and didn't let things slide. I can't see him allowing the education and knightly training of his heir to be neglected. The heir to the throne was his legacy. If Anthony Woodville was unwilling or unable to carry out his duties, then EIV was have had to find a replacement. Also, since the Woodville family fortunes depended on keeping EIV happy, I can't see him neglecting his obligations. Surely, while some things could be delegated, considerable hands on involvement would have been expected with such a senior appointment. Perhaps there wasn't much educating to be done. If EV was ill or learning disabled, then AW may not have been able to give him the classical education that had been intended, so there was no reason to visit Ludlow. Also, Hilary mentioned jousting. AW was an accomplished jouster, so it would make sense for him to teach EV an important social skill for a young royal.
If St. Elmo/Erasmus was invoked for assistance in childbirth, it is understandable that EW chose to build a chapel to honour a saint that she prayed to while giving birth at such a chaotic time. There would be an interesting synchronisity if EV chose the name to mark his 'rebirth' into a new identity.
On Friday, 25 January 2019, 00:07:05 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Nico,
Do you have the exact terms of Richard's call for assistance to Howard on 22 July, 1483? Was it an actual request for assistance or, possibly, something more along the lines of Richard wanting Howard to hurry with all speed to wherever Richard was? I ask because Howard was created Duke of Norfolk on 28 June, 1483, when he was also appointed Earl Marshal and Lord Admiral. Considering the loyalty Howard had shown to the House of York, I would think Richard just might want to make those presentations in person. As for that 22 June/22 July date, wasn't 22 June supposed to have been the day of Edward V's coronation? Perhaps the annotator simply presumed that if Edward wasn't crowned on that date he must have been dead?
I wonder if the scheduling of the dates of requiem masses for Louis XI and Edward IV weren't merely the result of what, when one forgets something, my sister terms a senior moment? IOW, it was expected that a requiem mass for Edward IV would be the first held in the newly-renovated Sistine Chapel, but whoever did the scheduling instead made arrangements for a requiem mass for Louis XI and, only once the arrangements were underway, realized that a requiem mass for Edward IV hadn't yet occurred and then scheduled one for after the one for Louis?
The problem with any signature of Edward V is that we really don't know how his days at Ludlow were actually spent. Did his tutor/s concentrate on ensuring that Edward would be fitted for his duties, or did they look n their position being more of sinecure than anything else. As best we can tell, Rivers, Edward's official Governor, didn't spend much time there and, while Vaughan may have been ace at keeping track of inanimate valuables, was he really up to enforcing the rules laid down for Edward's day-to-day activities? In fact, considering Vaughan's previous appointments, I wonder if his duties at Ludlow weren't more on the lines of security than anything else. After all, it was Rivers who'd been charged with over-seeing young Edward's education/training, not Vaughan.
Apparently St. Erasmus was also known as St. Elmo, the patron saint of sailors. The Wikipedia article on him ends with the following sentence:
Besides his patronage of mariners, Erasmus is invoked against colic in children, abdominal pain, intestinal ailments and diseases, cramps and the pain of women in labor, as well as cattle pests.
I think we can forget that very last as a reason for Elizabeth Woodville building a chapel to him in Westminster Abbey, but the penultimate one just might be.
I found another link:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Castles_of_England/Tudor_Castles
that has brick-making returning to England in the 14th century, which would be the 1300s, I believe. It also had the use of brick being concentrated in southeastern England so that would explain Richard of Eastwell being where he was.
My views on what happened to young Edward are that he survived at least until sometime after August 1485. He may very well have succumbed during that outbreak of the sweating sickness and, because he was in hiding, it wasn't possible for his death to be recorded as it should have been; viz., as the son of Edward IV. I also find it extremely difficult to come up with any reason for his death not being officially noted had it occurred at any time during his uncle's reign. Since no one ever attempted to claim the throne as Edward V, that tells me that either he died sometime before the Warbeck affair or else simply remained in hiding, preferring anonymity to risking his life for a position he'd decided, for whatever reason, he didn't particularly want. Unfortunately, neither case allows for an easy solution...
Doug
Nico wrote:
In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.

Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.

Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.

There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins.. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St.. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.

I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

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



Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-25 21:54:30
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
I'm really annoyed at Yahoo for deleting most of the John Bonauntre thread. I can still access the old messages on my kindle, but I don't have them to hand. If I remember rightly, John Beaumond the Chandler had a daughter named Juliana who married Philip Malpas and was about the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumont's great grandfather. Thomas Beaumont the Arch Deacon was a lot younger than Malpas, King and Hatclyf, but some of these families maintained their connections over a number of generations, and he knew (and was perhaps mentored by) Oliver King) Vaughan's wife was Eleanor Fitzalan, who was the widow of Sir Thomas Browne, who was executed in 1460. Browne was from Kent, with lands that later passed to Vaughan not far from the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords in the Yorkist hotspot area. Overall, a group of families with strong Yorkist loyalties, but who later did well under Henry VII.

I will try to retrieve the old notes and see what else I can put together.


On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:54:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below:
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483

There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow.
Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Thomas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think).
So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know? H
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 13:14:07 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

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

2019-01-25 21:55:23
Nicholas Brown
Life expectancy then was more of a lottery than it is now, but it is true that were a significant number of people who lived past 80, and many more who reached 60 and beyond. However, with no antibiotics more people died at young ages of infections that could be easily cured today so longevity would have been linked to a stronger immune system - something that Edward IV's children may have lacked. If you follow some of the family groups, there may have been a genetic predisposition to weaker immunity, possibly due to the inbreeding that was so prevalent with royalty and nobility. This was probably passed on to the Tudor line, with 3 of HT and EofY's 7 children dying in early childhood and another as a teenager. Of all the Tudors, Elizabeth I lived to 69, but all the others died at much younger ages.
Of the family groups, the weakest link was Anne Beauchamp's line. She lived to 66, but her mother and grandmother were late 30s/early 40s and her daughters 25 and 28. Margaret Pole was 67, but would have lasted longer if Henry VIII hadn't executed her. It is difficult to tell with the men in Richard of York's line as they didn't die of natural causes, but the women didn't fare very well.

Cecily of York was more robust than most of the group as she lived to 80, but none of her own children matched that longevity, although it is difficult to say with Richard, Clarence and Edmund as they died violently. Edward was 40 when he died, Anne 36, Margaret, 57 and Elizabeth 59. The main problem with Cecily and Richard of York's children was infant mortality, 6 of their 13 children died in infancy. Richard and Cecily were cousins and that may have compromised their offspring, but it may be relevant that the 4 children conceived in Rouen all survived childhood. The other children were born in various locations, but only 3/9 survived. This could be a coincidence, but perhaps Cecily had servants who gave better care at this time.

Being unrelated does seem to have helped. Most of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville's children survived to be adults. EIV and EW were not closely related and had 10 children. Of the 8 whose fates were known, 2 died in childhood and one as a teenager. Richard of Shrewsbury appears to have been likely to survive. These statistics were slightly better than average for royalty, but what they indicate for for Edward V is difficult to say. However, I do agree that he does not appear to be doing what would have been expected of a 12 year old boy from the medieval nobility. If he didn't have a strong constitution, he may have died of a fairly common infection, but he may have had a more complex condition. If there were congenital problems in Edward's line that caused the loss of Cecily's children, then they still could have been passed on to him.

Nico

On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:23:12 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household.
Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12Cecily 39Margaret 7 months Anne 36George 2 Katherine 48Bridget 37
Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV.
So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know.
So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager!
Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything?
Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre. H

On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 21:28:21 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.


Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at.
I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side.
Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-26 10:20:08
Hilary Jones
Your memory is correct!
Eleanor Fitzalan is also the mother of Sir George Browne, one of the very few people executed for the 1483 rebellions as a 'leader in Kent'. We don't know why he was singled out as his brother, who was also a rebel, didn't get the chop and was knighted and made Captain of Calais by HT. So we have two key people - Clfford and G. Browne in this circle.
I'm starting to do a bit more work on Vaughan - I think we should. Trouble is, as they say on Wiki, he is easily confused with Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, Buck's old adversary. Even the Westminster Abbey guide gives him the wrong daughter. The bit of I've done so far indicates he was more active in London than Wales - he is in deeds with Oliver King's father and with a couple of people called Vaux! And, Mary if you're there, our old friend John Newton! He certainly rose to dizzy heights with Edward very fast, often named in the same clauses as Rivers and Hastings.
I think we may be doing a bit more debunking of Sir Thomas the 'martyr tutor' persecuted by Richard. H
On Friday, 25 January 2019, 21:54:34 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
I'm really annoyed at Yahoo for deleting most of the John Bonauntre thread. I can still access the old messages on my kindle, but I don't have them to hand. If I remember rightly, John Beaumond the Chandler had a daughter named Juliana who married Philip Malpas and was about the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumont's great grandfather. Thomas Beaumont the Arch Deacon was a lot younger than Malpas, King and Hatclyf, but some of these families maintained their connections over a number of generations, and he knew (and was perhaps mentored by) Oliver King) Vaughan's wife was Eleanor Fitzalan, who was the widow of Sir Thomas Browne, who was executed in 1460. Browne was from Kent, with lands that later passed to Vaughan not far from the Bonauntre/Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords in the Yorkist hotspot area. Overall, a group of families with strong Yorkist loyalties, but who later did well under Henry VII.

I will try to retrieve the old notes and see what else I can put together.


On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:54:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below:
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483

There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow.
Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Thomas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think).
So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know? H
On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 13:14:07 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard...Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
That is a very interesting possibility and should definitely be considered since nobody knows for certain what Buckingham's intentions were. If there were problems with Edward V, he would have been in a position to know from Katherine Woodville why Anthony Woodville didn't bother to visit Ludlow or get involved with Edward V's education. This would have been known among the Woodvilles, but may have been suppressed at Court for stability reasons. If EV had an intellectual disability, the plan would probably have been to keep him at Ludlow among a closed circle, while grooming Richard to succeed Edward IV, either as King, or if EV was still alive as Protector. However, when EIV died suddenly when both boys were young, Buckingham may have seen an opportunity.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 11:33:47 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I think the Alice Burgh as a long standing servant does fit in better with the pension Richard gave her. If she was the Alice Burgh as the Prioress she may have needed the pension to enter the priory as anyone becoming a nun had to pay a substantial sum.
I think it was originally Rosemary Horrox that came up with Alice Burgh and Katherine Haute as suggestions for being the mother of Katherine and John of Gloucester.. Alice Burgh seems an unlikely candidate. I'm still not sure about Katherine Haute, but Marie thought she may have been servant of the Countess of Oxford. There is an article in one of the Ricardians from a few years ago that details where Richard went in the year after leaving Warwick's household. Their mother was most likely someone he met around that time, but I don't think we will ever be able to specifically identify her.
Nico

On Tuesday, 22 January 2019, 10:53:04 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I was only thinking, it gives yet another reason for Buckingham to appear when he did. If he was in the inner circle of the royal family who knew that young Edward's reign would not be long (and with his wife it's likely that he was) then what better moment to get himself noticed again by ROS, at whose wedding he had played a significant role(with Richard of course). Young Edward dies and Buckingham is ready to swoop to the side of ROS as his mentor with Uncle Richard.
Except the Pre Contract came along and closed off that path..
Just a thought! H
On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:33:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Yes I saw the Kent thing Nico. What made me think again was that I haven't yet found her on a Clifford Visitation and I think they said they were making certain assumptions.

Do you think it is possible that the Kent Archeological Society could be wrong with the name Jane, and it may have been Isabel? I wondered where they got the name Jane from (confused it with Pecche's mother, Jane Hadley perhaps?). Less significant family members are often unrecorded on visitations, and the Clifford family obtained a significant inheritance a few generations back with from Robert Clifford's marriage to Isabel de Berkelely, and the name may still have been in use. If so, that could put 'our' Isabel back in the frame. Nico

On Monday, 21 January 2019, 11:20:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
As far as I know, the only person to have an in depth look at Leslau's work recently is Matthew Lewis. Some of his writing is on the internet, but it is a shame it isn't available in a more comprehensive form. I don't think he ever published it as a book. I have always thought he had some good ideas but reached the wrong conclusions, but his research is still worth examining.
I lean in favour of J-AH's theory on Edward V. That signature is really shaky and it appears to have been written rather ponderously with a number of strokes. Unless Edward V was attempting a more artistic version of usual signature, it looks like he was unused to writing his name or had difficulty doing so. Medieval letters were more complex, but I would have thought that someone who was being trained to be King might practice writing his name so that by age 12 he would have quite an accomplished autograph. In addition to his comparative invisibility, it is interesting to note that although Anthony Woodville was given such a senior role in young Edward's education, it is clear from the Dymock correspondence that he rarely visited Ludlow at all in the 1480s. Could this have been because Edward was ill or had a learning disability? Also, some learning disabilities are associated with physical health problems.
Is is possible that people that people close to the Royal Family knew that Edward was not well and was unlikely to be long for the world and was expected to die before Edward IV? He was the elder son, so he had to be the heir, but was Richard of Shrewsbury given some consideration as the one who would eventually be King? Ann Wroe noticed a similarity between Perkin's writing and that Anthony Woodville. Had AW given up on educating Edward and focused on Richard during his visits to London. Also, David Baldwin (I think it was the Richard of Eastwell book) noticed that Richard was given more expensive clothing than Edward. If the Woodvilles knew that Edward was unwell that may explain some of their behaviour, especially the slower rate at which they made their way to London after Edward IV died even though they were desperate to get him crowned.
Although it isn't clear which 'King Edward' the papal mass is intended for, JA-H observation about memorial masses being held on anniversaries combined with the note on the Anlaby cartulary suggests that Edward probably died on July 23 or possibly August 1483 (June being a mistake on the cartulary).
Nico On Sunday, 20 January 2019, 10:58:27 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I do! Didn't he unfortunately die soon after and no-one picked up his work? H
On Saturday, 19 January 2019, 23:08:54 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just remembered something, years ago before Jack Leslau died he was trying to get permission to open John Clement's tomb to test for DNA I think. Does anyone else remember this?


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-26 10:24:48
Hilary Jones
See my reply to Nico Doug. I think Sir Thomas, like many of this era, went with the flow ..... I'll update. H
On Friday, 25 January 2019, 13:08:32 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, FWIW, I think the author of the article in your link meant that Vaughan was acting on behalf od Edward, not Margaret of Anjou. I had to read the sentence several times before I realized that, while the men and treasure originated in London, the ship had sailed from Antwerp. It does appears to me, however, that except for his association with Jasper Tudor, Vaughan seems to have been a life-long Yorkist. FWIW, that attempt by Vaughan et al to take that treasure from London to Ireland sounds to me as if they were aiming to turn it over to the Yorkists, with Edward IV's later actions in securing their release adding support to the idea. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, when I was looking at various biographies of Sir Thomas Vaughan I came across the Welsh one. Here's the link below: https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483 There are a couple of things in there that might ring a bell. Firstly, in 1468 he acted with Philip Malpas and William Hatycliff to take some treasure abroad. It's not quite clear from this whether he was acting on behalf of MOA or Edward or playing a double game. Malpas was of course the son-in-law of John Beaumond (chandler) and an Alderman of London and died the next year. As Edward secured their release after capture he seems to have gone over to Edward. So he seems to be someone who went with the flow. Secondly in 1460 he had been appointed Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Henry VI. Now you may recall that Robert Cosyn, father to Tho mas Beaumont's colleague and executor, William Cosyn succeeded him as Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward IV and was there until his death in 1486 (I think). So Vaughan seems to have mixed in the circles of Baumont, Cosyn and, by default, Oliver King. Perhaps Richard knew more about him than we will ever know?
--
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

2019-01-26 10:43:09
Hilary Jones
Yep I agree with all of this Nico. I find it a fascinating subject. I've now of course got a lot of families on my database, some going on for several centuries. Longevity does in deed seem to run in families. Take the Mauleverers. Sir John died in 1475 at the age of 85, his grandchildren Halnaith 77, Thomas 64, Ralph 70 whereas if you look at the Luttrell family, which was one of those into which they married, each generation had a job to reach 60 -some fell significantly short.
Though most of the Plantagenets didn't die a natural death, even Edward III only made it to 64, Edward I 68 and Henry II 65 - not an octogenarian in sight. There seems to be no reason why Edward IV should die young, unless as we speculated he had a chronic disease. London wasn't the best place, in fact it was the most risky disease-wise. One wonders whether Ludlow was the choice for the young Edward, not just because of strategy but because of the better environment; incidentally a potential other reason for leaving Edward of Middleham in Yorkshire?
Re Cis, I read somewhere that her father had a limp. Could this possibly be related to the scoliosis which was passed on to Richard? It doesn't occur anywhere else in the English royal line as far as I know (though of course it does in the French). H
On Friday, 25 January 2019, 21:58:18 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Life expectancy then was more of a lottery than it is now, but it is true that were a significant number of people who lived past 80, and many more who reached 60 and beyond. However, with no antibiotics more people died at young ages of infections that could be easily cured today so longevity would have been linked to a stronger immune system - something that Edward IV's children may have lacked. If you follow some of the family groups, there may have been a genetic predisposition to weaker immunity, possibly due to the inbreeding that was so prevalent with royalty and nobility. This was probably passed on to the Tudor line, with 3 of HT and EofY's 7 children dying in early childhood and another as a teenager. Of all the Tudors, Elizabeth I lived to 69, but all the others died at much younger ages.
Of the family groups, the weakest link was Anne Beauchamp's line. She lived to 66, but her mother and grandmother were late 30s/early 40s and her daughters 25 and 28. Margaret Pole was 67, but would have lasted longer if Henry VIII hadn't executed her. It is difficult to tell with the men in Richard of York's line as they didn't die of natural causes, but the women didn't fare very well.

Cecily of York was more robust than most of the group as she lived to 80, but none of her own children matched that longevity, although it is difficult to say with Richard, Clarence and Edmund as they died violently. Edward was 40 when he died, Anne 36, Margaret, 57 and Elizabeth 59. The main problem with Cecily and Richard of York's children was infant mortality, 6 of their 13 children died in infancy.. Richard and Cecily were cousins and that may have compromised their offspring, but it may be relevant that the 4 children conceived in Rouen all survived childhood. The other children were born in various locations, but only 3/9 survived. This could be a coincidence, but perhaps Cecily had servants who gave better care at this time.

Being unrelated does seem to have helped. Most of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville's children survived to be adults. EIV and EW were not closely related and had 10 children.. Of the 8 whose fates were known, 2 died in childhood and one as a teenager. Richard of Shrewsbury appears to have been likely to survive. These statistics were slightly better than average for royalty, but what they indicate for for Edward V is difficult to say. However, I do agree that he does not appear to be doing what would have been expected of a 12 year old boy from the medieval nobility. If he didn't have a strong constitution, he may have died of a fairly common infection, but he may have had a more complex condition. If there were congenital problems in Edward's line that caused the loss of Cecily's children, then they still could have been passed on to him.

Nico

On Thursday, 24 January 2019, 11:23:12 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household.
Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12Cecily 39Margaret 7 months Anne 36George 2 Katherine 48Bridget 37
Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV.
So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know.
So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager!
Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything?
Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre. H

On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 21:28:21 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,

In regards to the Anlaby Cartulary, the author at the following link seems to believe the annotations, which is where the information about Edward V is, are less than reliable. I'm sorry to say that I really don't know one way or the other.
Thanks for the link. June 22 is obviously too early, could the month have been confused with July. I believe the original annotations were in Latin. Could Junius have been confused with Julius? On July 22, Richard received news of something important (not clear what) and he called for assistance from Sir John Howard. Could this have been something to do with unrest related to the Tower rescue? Even if he wasn't unwell, could Edward have died as a result of it? Since requiem masses were traditionally held as near as possible to the anniversary of a person's death (weeks, months, years), then the on September 23 would have been more fitting for him than Edward IV (April 9). The other royal requiem was for Louis XI, September 13, 2 weeks after he died on August 30. It would be interesting to know if another papal requiem had been arranged for Edward IV, but perhaps the records are no longer available. This particular record is from the newly renovated Sistine Chapel, so Edward IV requiem may have been held elsewhere in Rome.
Are there any reports that can be verified as being independent of Mancini in regards to Edward being sickly? My recollection of Mancini is that he really didn't mention anything in particular, only that Edward was attended by Dr. Argentine.

It is speculative, but JA-H points out that Edward IV's will was written in a way that suggested that it seemed less certain that EV would succeed him ('such as shall please Almighty God to ordeigne to bee our heires and to succede us in the throne of England), whereas more definitive language is used with regard to plans for Richard. However, it could be just a stylistic difference in the documents. The most specific reference to health were from Mancini, and even those are ambiguous. He may also have been depressed (unsurprising given the circumstances), but Molinet also mentions that even before the crisis, that Richard had a cheerful, playful personality, whereas Edward was rather morose and taciturn..

If the Wikipedia article about Erasmus is correct, his evasiveness about his early life may have been due to the fact that he was illegitimate and preferred not to bring up his early years because of that fact. As his father was a Catholic priest, obscuring his origins/early life would reduce the ammunition available to any detractor.
There could have been a number of reasons why Erasmus may have obscured his origins, but I think that the insistence on speaking Latin at all times may have been to cover up a linguistic inconsistency in his story, unless it was just an eccentricity of his. He certainly had many contacts among the English upper classes. Whether he was Edward V or not. I'm not entirely convinced that illegitimacy alone was the reason for obscuring his origins. There were a lot of illegitimate people back then and they appear to have been more matter of fact about illegitimacy than they were from the Victorian era until quite recently. I believe the names of Erasmus' parents were given in his own account of his life, but there is no independent confirmation of his early life. From what I understand, the earliest definitive record of Erasmus is a letter where he writes to a guardian about the why he didn't receive some books from his fathers will (books were a bequest in Edward IV's 1485 will). Another one of the 'connections' in the theory was that Elizabeth Woodville had a particular devotion to St. Erasmus and built a shrine to him in Westminster Abbey near EV's birthplace. Edward V transforming into Erasmus is a long shot, but if EV did survive, in the absence of any alternative identities, some of the coincidences were intriguing.
I didn't know that bricklaying was associated with the low countries at that time - interesting when you consider Richard of Eastwell. Also, I agree with your description of Anthony Woodville as a dilettante. It still seems strange though that he wasn't teaching Edward anything, but wasn't replaced in his position.

Nico


On Wednesday, 23 January 2019, 17:14:56 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It seems a bit odd that Edward would leave the education and indeed the upbringing of his eldest son to someone as old as that. Even if he assumed that Rivers would be making a good job of it surely he would be checking up that it was being done properly. He was the heir to the throne for goodness sake. Surely he wanted him to be trained properly.


Edward and his brother Edmund lived at Ludlow when they were young and were obviously trained in knightly pursuits and all the other things that noble families wanted their sons to be proficient at.
I looked up Thomas Vaughan and apparently initially he was a Lancastrian and an adherent of Jasper Tudor but went over to the Yorkist side.
Maybe Edward was a sickly child and not able to do what would be required of him if he ever became king.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-26 12:02:56
ricard1an
Could there be a connection to Stillington if John Newton is involved?
Mary


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-26 14:15:52
Hilary Jones
Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles.
There are a few things emerging:
Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equalsVaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet?From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than StillingtonHis primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales.
Still working, early days. H

On Saturday, 26 January 2019, 12:03:00 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Could there be a connection to Stillington if John Newton is involved?


Mary


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

2019-01-26 20:14:04
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I isn't clear exactly what happened, but it coincides with the Tower rescue attempt. J-AH wrote that when Richard set off on a tour of the realm on July 21, his party included John Howard and Buckingham, but 'a crisis of some kind then seems to have arisen in London, and Richard sent Howard back to the capital to deal with the situation for him.' He says that there may have been 3 attempts to assault the Tower. Howard stayed at Crosby's Place, Richard's pied-at-terre, which indicates that his service in London was on the the King's behalf. On July 29, Richard issued a warrant to the Lord Chancellor informing him some people had been arrested after 'an enterprise.' According to a contemporary account by a French bishop named Basin and John Stow (16th century) there was a plot by Londoners at the time. Stow mentions diversionary fires around the Tower and names those arrested. If Edward died around this time, it may have been as a result of being injured in a rescue attempt. Doug here: Maybe it's me, but I don't recall assaults on the Tower of London as being so common as to not rate mentioning in letters, Chronicles, reports to foreign governments and the like. I would think that multiple assaults on the Tower, what with it being the seat of royal authority in London as well as containing the Mint and arms, would rate someone of higher rank than Howard was at that point in time. Someone such as the king himself. Maybe it's just me. OTOH, an attempt, or attempts to sneak into the Tower grounds would likely require fewer people and could certainly be less noticed; and, in fact, that would be the main reason for trying to enter the grounds in that matter. Diversionary fires around the Tower says to me that, rather than an assault, what was intended was a high-level smash and grab, with Edward and Richard being what was to be grabbed. The idea of the fires being, I suppose, to divert men from their jobs guarding the various entries to the Tower and thus allow a small group to enter, by force if necessary. Nico continued: While who ever compiled the chart may have made that assumption, it does seem a very specific reference to the fact that he died, when there is no date for Richard of Shrewsbury (only that he died young). Doug here: If something more definitive is discovered then this notation might serve to buttress that new discovery; otherwise I think I'll stick with the presumption that the annotator suffered from the same problem so many later writers did: Edward disappeared and therefore he must be dead. Nico continued: It is always possible that it could have been an error and the Anlaby date and the unrest in around the Tower are just co-incidences. I would also be interested to know if a requiem at some other time for Edward IV can be definitely ruled out, as I can't imagine a Papal mass for Edward V if there hadn't been one for his father. I would have thought however that if Louis' was arranged within two weeks, Edward IV's would have been arranged by May in some other Church in Rome. Doug here: To be honest, I wonder if what we really need is an in-depth examination of when the renovations for the Sistine Chapel began and when they were expected to be complete, including the personnel involved in order to determine whether there's actually a mystery here or whether the dates for the masses were the result of a scheduling mix-up. It's crossed my mind that a mass for Edward may have been scheduled immediately the renovation was complete with the expected completion date for those renovations being a month or more before they were actually completed.
Nico continued:
That is hard to say. The details that we have for EV's life at Ludlow are outlined in Hicks' book, but some of the instructions and documents that we rely on date from the 1470s. There may have been changes in routines to accommodate EV's health that are not recorded. One thing we do know is that Edward IV kept on top of administrative matters and didn't let things slide. I can't see him allowing the education and knightly training of his heir to be neglected. The heir to the throne was his legacy.. If Anthony Woodville was unwilling or unable to carry out his duties, then EIV was have had to find a replacement. Also, since the Woodville family fortunes depended on keeping EIV happy, I can't see him neglecting his obligations. Surely, while some things could be delegated, considerable hands on involvement would have been expected with such a senior appointment. Perhaps there wasn't much educating to be done. If EV was ill or learning disabled, then AW may not have been able to give him the classical education that had been intended, so there was no reason to visit Ludlow. Also, Hilary mentioned jousting. AW was an accomplished jouster, so it would make sense for him to teach EV an important social skill for a young royal. Doug here: Are there any records of Edward IV going to Ludlow? Or his wife? While I have the impression that young Edward went east upon occasion, I haven't any idea when or how often. I ask about Edward IV because, presuming he stayed east of the Cotswolds, he'd have to rely on reports, wouldn't he? With any direct observations only being possible on those occasions, if any, when his son came east? Something I think we've overlooked is that Edward V has been described as being depressed while in the Tower, yet there are also reports of he and his brother out practicing their archery when the weather was nice. Now, if Edward was so ill he couldn't even sign his name without it being so shaky, how in the world could he practice archery? Particularly if they were using long-bows? To me both descriptions sound like what one might expect from a 12 year-old. (Note: I haven't raised any children, so there's that!) As for jousting, just when did the training for that begin? Edward was only 12 when his father died and, as far as I know, was quite able to ride. We also have him practicing archery and he may very well have been taught the rudiments of sword-fighting, but we have no record of that particular exercise. I know Henry VIII wasn't allowed to participate in jousting because he was the sole heir, perhaps Edward was in a similar position? Come to think of it, does anyone know what Edward IV's position on jousting was? Did he, perhaps, view it as not really preparing anyone for what they'd actually face if they should be in a battle? And it's not as if Rivers had a great reputation for his combat experience!
Nico concluded: If St. Elmo/Erasmus was invoked for assistance in childbirth, it is understandable that EW chose to build a chapel to honour a saint that she prayed to while giving birth at such a chaotic time. There would be an interesting synchronisity if EV chose the name to mark his 'rebirth' into a new identity. Doug here: It would definitely rank as one of history's greatest coincidences! Doug Who hopes he hasn't come across as being inqisitorial!

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

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-26 20:21:56
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I noticed in the article that Vaughan stood surety for Tudor (didn't say whether it was a debt or something else). A little insurance in case the Yorkists didn't come out on top? Doug Hilary wrote: See my reply to Nico Doug. I think Sir Thomas, like many of this era, went with the flow ..... I'll update.
--
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

2019-01-27 14:46:50
Doug Stamate
Hilary, If the articles about them in Wikipedia are accurate, EoY died as a result of a post partum infection, while her sister Anne died giving birth to her daughter by Thoms St. Leger. Katherine, the Wikipedia article on her has her name spelled with a C), married Courtenay and had three children, two of whom survived to adulthood. (one boy and one girl). So we're left the deaths of undetermined causes at a fairly early age of Mary, Margaret and George. Infant mortality, even among the nobility, was quite common prior to antibiotics and some sort of infection was most likely the cause of the deaths of Margaret and George. Wikipedia has Mary's age when she died as 15, but gives no cause of death. The one outlier, really, is Bridget. As a nun she wouldn't have encountered the risks attendant to childbirth, but if her duties at the convent included tending the sick, she'd increase her chances of succumbing to some communicable disease, wouldn't she? I believe Nico mentioned the possibility that young Edward may have had a learning disability and the thought crossed my mind that perhaps he suffered from some sort of attention-deficit syndrome? We have reports of Edward and his brother apparently enjoying themselves practicing archery in the Tower garden, while he also have near-contemporary reports of Edward being depressed while being in the Royal apartments at the Tower, so It may have been a mild case. After all, when one is dealing with the education of the heir to throne, how far does the one in charge really want to go to enforce the rules laid down for his education? IOW, in 1483 what we have is a 12 year-old whose classroom education wasn't advancing as quickly as would be expected/hoped? And, presuming again that young Edward may have had a mild case of attention-deficit syndrome, it turns out the even the tournaments/jousts that Rivers seemed to like so well could be quite dangerous. A king of France died in 1559 as a result of a tournament-related injury, so I can easily imagine young Edward not being allowed to participate, or even be trained, in such activities  at least not until he was older. If I was trying to provide a good cover story for the last Plantagenet, I don't know if I'd try to pass him off as a bricklayer/mason unless he'd actually done a fairly extensive amount of hard physical labor. His hands would give him away otherwise. If I recall the story about Richard of Eastwell correctly, it doesn't say directly that he laid bricks, only that he was the chief bricklayer. Which could very well mean supervisor, couldn't it? Presuming he did survive, Edward would have had to do something in the intervening years since 1485 and what better cover than the very plebian one of brick-laying? Which, if I also understand it correctly, would have been fairly well remunerative as well? By the time he appeared at Eastwell, his age and experience would have him in a supervisory position. possibly even something of an architect/designer. Of course, it's also entirely possible that Moyle was conned and Richard of Eastwell wasn't Edward IV's son, but instead was someone who'd known young Edward after Bosworth and, having discovered who he (Edward) was, tried to make his own later years more comfortable as an unannounced pretender. It'd be the heights of irony, if so! Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, Mary, Nico, firstly we don't know when Sir Thomas was born, just that he was the child of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth. The first we hear of him is in 1442/3 when he received denizenship and a first appointment. So he could well have been born around 1420, not 1410, so 55 would be quite a reasonable age to be in charge of the young Edward's household. Secondly, in one of his other works JAH goes into quite a lot of detail about the health of Edward's children. There does seem to have been some sort of 'faulty gene', since even those who survived into adulthood died fairly young viz: EOY 37 Mary 12 Cecily 39 Margaret 7 months Anne 36 George 2 Katherine 48 Bridget 37 Don't be misled by those historians who claim that 40 was old; it wasn't. Life expectancy was not a lot different to that in 1960, it's only in the last fifty years that medicine has made a real impact. As always it depended on environment, circumstances(war) and for women childbirth. If ever I'm able to upload my Bosworth list you'll see that there were men fighting at Bosworth who were twenty years' older than Edward IV. So Edward IV died young, as did all his children except perhaps Katherine who managed it to middle age. EW's children by her first husband seemed quite healthy. We of course don't know whether this gene affected George or Richard because there were also definitely problems with Isabel Dispenser's child's fertility (Anne Beauchamp). So they could have got a 'double whammy', we'll never know. So I think it is highly likely, given all the other evidence (or rather lack of it) that Edward V was not a particularly healthy child. For a start you'd have thought Uncle Anthony, that great jouster, would have had him practising in the lists by the age of 12. Yes I think Anthony was someone with a great PR Manager! Thirdly the 'bricklayer' occupation could be a complete red herring. Let's say Sir Thomas Moyle, son of Richard's judge and commissioner in 1483, felt he needed some way to announce to the world that a Plantagenet had passed. He'd have to be very careful, wouldn't he? He had done well under Henry VIII and he knew what happened to those who dared to mention the HOY. A 'passing bricklayer' turning up by chance and spending his last days there would be a great cover. And also when this emerged he'd been dead for some time. So who could accuse Sir Thomas of anything? Nico, in the Welsh biography of Sir Thomas Vaughan I've noticed something very interesting. I'll post it under John Bonautre.
--
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

2019-01-27 19:23:02
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Re Cis, I read somewhere that her father had a limp. Could this possibly be related to the scoliosis which was passed on to Richard? It doesn't occur anywhere else in the English royal line as far as I know (though of course it does in the French)."

Carol responds:

Unless Edmund Crouchback was so called because he had scoliosis and not because he wore a cross on his back as a former crusader as is usually claimed. Henry IV certainly interpreted the nickname to indicate some type of deformity (as "proof" that he was the "true" heir in the female line because Edmund, the "elder" brother, had been passed over because of his deformity. All nonsense, of course.) Why Henry didn't just claim the throne through his father, John of Gaunt, escapes me, but that's beside the poing.

Carol


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-28 11:39:54
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
This is a rather long article on Thomas Vaughan, but it covers what is known about him, including his links with the Brownes and other Kent families, the Woodvilles and Stony Stratford. It isn't certain who his parents, Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monnmouth actually were, but they they don't fit in with the Tretower or Bredwardine Vaughans, but I wouldn't rule out an illegitimate or distant link. I suspect they must have been of some significance, as Thomas was given prominent appointments quite early on.
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/thomas-vaughan-an-intro
Nico
On Saturday, 26 January 2019, 20:22:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I noticed in the article that Vaughan stood surety for Tudor (didn't say whether it was a debt or something else). A little insurance in case the Yorkists didn't come out on top? Doug Hilary wrote: See my reply to Nico Doug. I think Sir Thomas, like many of this era, went with the flow ..... I'll update.
--
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

2019-01-28 11:42:00
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I don't think you are being too inquisitorial. The more the facts can be analysed the better!
The Tower: The idea of the activity around the Tower being low level makes sense. If there was major unrest, you would need more reinforcements than simply John Howard, and it would have been difficult to avoid wider reporting. However, if there had been some fires and people acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the Tower, then sending Howard to supervise the situation may have seemed enough. The question is, was it enough? Did someone eventually gain entry, and if so who and what happened? Even no rescue attempt actually succeeded, it would be safer to move both the boys at this point, possibly to separate locations. Croyland says they were in the Tower as late as early September (when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales), but he may be wrong.
The Anlaby Cartulary: You may be correct about this. The roll also records gives an incorrect date for Edward IV's death. Whatever the truth, the Anlaby Cartulary is incorrect, as June 22 is too early. Another (Middleton Collection) account states that the Edward V drowned on June 27 (submersum fuit), again with no mention of what happened to his brother. I think this account is following your logic and has chosen the date after Richard took the throne too randomly. However, is it possible that he drowned after falling into the Thames during a rescue attempt? I'm not sure how the accident would have happened, but could he have fallen while escaping a 'rescuer?' The 'rescuers' may not have had the Princes' best interests at heart, and Edward may have know that. Molinet's account does suggest that around July 22 (5 weeks after being imprisoned), the Princes were murdered and buried in the Tower grounds.
The Requiem: I wish I knew more about the traditions about papal requiems for medieval royalty. This is where Marie could have been helpful. If not the Sistine Chapel, where would Edward IV's requiem have been held? Was it essential to have it held asap after he died, or would it have been appropriate to wait for the Sistine chapel? Still, the date doesn't fit with the tradition of holding it on or close to an anniversary, but is in keeping for Edward V if he died on July 22. I will see if I can find out more on customs surrounding this practice.
Edward at Ludlow: You raise some interesting questions here. It is true that Henry VII discouraged jousting for young Henry VIII for safety reasons, but he was taught to joust at some point, because it did plenty of it once he became King. I don't know what age boys were taught to joust, but I get the general impression that since riding was essential and learned by a very early age, they would have been introduced to it fairly young. You make a good point about the archery too. The account did say that both boys were practicing, so he must have been well enough to get out and shoot. However, the author doesn't mention if he was good at it, or if it was more about Richard practicing his skills. I suppose it is possible that Edward may have been generally unwell, but could manage a few shots, or possibly he had a learning disability (anything from something mild like dyslexia to something more serious and intellectually compromising) that affected his writing and ability to learn, which caused Anthony Woodville to give up on his education, but wasn't that physically disabled.
I can easily see why Edward V was depressed while in the Tower. Confinement of any kind is depressing, and he had experienced a horrendous upheaval for a young boy. That may also be the reason for Dr. Argentine's visits. Perhaps he had to give him something to calm him down. Under all that pressure, he may well have had a nervous breakdown.

As far as I understand, EIV and EW made a few visits to Ludlow - one when Richard of Shrewsbury was born, but not that many. EV does seem to have made visits to London, but how many isn't clear. I believe it is on one such visit that Molinet met both the boys, commenting that Richard was playful, but Edward seemed taciturn and moody. Maybe that was just his personality, or could it have been related to some sort of disability or illness?
Nico On Saturday, 26 January 2019, 20:14:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I isn't clear exactly what happened, but it coincides with the Tower rescue attempt. J-AH wrote that when Richard set off on a tour of the realm on July 21, his party included John Howard and Buckingham, but 'a crisis of some kind then seems to have arisen in London, and Richard sent Howard back to the capital to deal with the situation for him.' He says that there may have been 3 attempts to assault the Tower. Howard stayed at Crosby's Place, Richard's pied-at-terre, which indicates that his service in London was on the the King's behalf. On July 29, Richard issued a warrant to the Lord Chancellor informing him some people had been arrested after 'an enterprise.' According to a contemporary account by a French bishop named Basin and John Stow (16th century) there was a plot by Londoners at the time. Stow mentions diversionary fires around the Tower and names those arrested. If Edward died around this time, it may have been as a result of being injured in a rescue attempt. Doug here: Maybe it's me, but I don't recall assaults on the Tower of London as being so common as to not rate mentioning in letters, Chronicles, reports to foreign governments and the like. I would think that multiple assaults on the Tower, what with it being the seat of royal authority in London as well as containing the Mint and arms, would rate someone of higher rank than Howard was at that point in time. Someone such as the king himself. Maybe it's just me. OTOH, an attempt, or attempts to sneak into the Tower grounds would likely require fewer people and could certainly be less noticed; and, in fact, that would be the main reason for trying to enter the grounds in that matter. Diversionary fires around the Tower says to me that, rather than an assault, what was intended was a high-level smash and grab, with Edward and Richard being what was to be grabbed. The idea of the fires being, I suppose, to divert men from their jobs guarding the various entries to the Tower and thus allow a small group to enter, by force if necessary. Nico continued: While who ever compiled the chart may have made that assumption, it does seem a very specific reference to the fact that he died, when there is no date for Richard of Shrewsbury (only that he died young). Doug here: If something more definitive is discovered then this notation might serve to buttress that new discovery; otherwise I think I'll stick with the presumption that the annotator suffered from the same problem so many later writers did: Edward disappeared and therefore he must be dead. Nico continued: It is always possible that it could have been an error and the Anlaby date and the unrest in around the Tower are just co-incidences. I would also be interested to know if a requiem at some other time for Edward IV can be definitely ruled out, as I can't imagine a Papal mass for Edward V if there hadn't been one for his father. I would have thought however that if Louis' was arranged within two weeks, Edward IV's would have been arranged by May in some other Church in Rome. Doug here: To be honest, I wonder if what we really need is an in-depth examination of when the renovations for the Sistine Chapel began and when they were expected to be complete, including the personnel involved in order to determine whether there's actually a mystery here or whether the dates for the masses were the result of a scheduling mix-up. It's crossed my mind that a mass for Edward may have been scheduled immediately the renovation was complete with the expected completion date for those renovations being a month or more before they were actually completed.
Nico continued:
That is hard to say. The details that we have for EV's life at Ludlow are outlined in Hicks' book, but some of the instructions and documents that we rely on date from the 1470s. There may have been changes in routines to accommodate EV's health that are not recorded. One thing we do know is that Edward IV kept on top of administrative matters and didn't let things slide. I can't see him allowing the education and knightly training of his heir to be neglected. The heir to the throne was his legacy... If Anthony Woodville was unwilling or unable to carry out his duties, then EIV was have had to find a replacement. Also, since the Woodville family fortunes depended on keeping EIV happy, I can't see him neglecting his obligations. Surely, while some things could be delegated, considerable hands on involvement would have been expected with such a senior appointment. Perhaps there wasn't much educating to be done. If EV was ill or learning disabled, then AW may not have been able to give him the classical education that had been intended, so there was no reason to visit Ludlow. Also, Hilary mentioned jousting. AW was an accomplished jouster, so it would make sense for him to teach EV an important social skill for a young royal. Doug here: Are there any records of Edward IV going to Ludlow? Or his wife? While I have the impression that young Edward went east upon occasion, I haven't any idea when or how often. I ask about Edward IV because, presuming he stayed east of the Cotswolds, he'd have to rely on reports, wouldn't he? With any direct observations only being possible on those occasions, if any, when his son came east? Something I think we've overlooked is that Edward V has been described as being depressed while in the Tower, yet there are also reports of he and his brother out practicing their archery when the weather was nice. Now, if Edward was so ill he couldn't even sign his name without it being so shaky, how in the world could he practice archery? Particularly if they were using long-bows? To me both descriptions sound like what one might expect from a 12 year-old. (Note: I haven't raised any children, so there's that!) As for jousting, just when did the training for that begin? Edward was only 12 when his father died and, as far as I know, was quite able to ride. We also have him practicing archery and he may very well have been taught the rudiments of sword-fighting, but we have no record of that particular exercise. I know Henry VIII wasn't allowed to participate in jousting because he was the sole heir, perhaps Edward was in a similar position? Come to think of it, does anyone know what Edward IV's position on jousting was? Did he, perhaps, view it as not really preparing anyone for what they'd actually face if they should be in a battle? And it's not as if Rivers had a great reputation for his combat experience!
Nico concluded: If St. Elmo/Erasmus was invoked for assistance in childbirth, it is understandable that EW chose to build a chapel to honour a saint that she prayed to while giving birth at such a chaotic time. There would be an interesting synchronisity if EV chose the name to mark his 'rebirth' into a new identity. Doug here: It would definitely rank as one of history's greatest coincidences! Doug Who hopes he hasn't come across as being inqisitorial!

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

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-28 12:03:09
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, I've been doing quite a lot over the weekend.
It's pretty obvious that through the years TV has become confused with his namesake from Tretower who was of course related to the Herberts and whose father fought at Agincourt. For example the Escheatorship given to him in the early 1450s was I reckon given to TV of Tretower, whose father had held the same job. We know he had an alias (Landaff) and that his parents were Robert and Margaret because he arranged for masses to be said for their souls. I can't find either of them, yet.
There are lots of entries on our Thomas and he is usually referred to as Esquire (before his knighthood in 1475) and 'of London'. I'm very interested in him. Why? Because, somehow with little or no talent he got not just into the good books of Edward, but to be treated as someone who was spoken of in the same breath as Rivers and Hastings. He had the exemption to wear the clothes of the nobility, he negotiated Margaret's marriage, he made other earlier trips to Burgundy.
Now JAH made a great thing about Stillington being rewarded with posts by Edward, but Stillington was an immensely talented guy who had held the same salary and high office under Henry VI. He had the experience - he was needed. Not so with TV.Apart from supporting ROY in his last year (as many did) and indeed flipping back and forward in allegiance till Edward took the throne what did he do? Certainly he made a good marriage and there is a rather nasty case of him and Eleanor swooping on lands they believed they owned. He also has lots of cases involving taking large bonds (one being from Sir John Newton) and being a debtor himself. Not a particularly savory person.
So I'm interested in him for a number of reasons:
1. What hold did he have on Edward, because I fail to see any other attraction?2. Did Richard approve - there's one deed in 1476 where Richard gifts him, Hasting and some others some of his lands. If he was just the household man why did Richard execute him? Richard didn't execute lightly3. What was his relationship with Hastings? When Hastings 'fell' TV was still in prison. He was executed two days' later. Had Hastings not expected Richard to arrest TV with the others? Were they communicating?4. And finally there is the London connection - he comes across primarily as a Londoner, I think the Welsh myth came later.
So often he's treated as a cardboard character, another martyr to Richard. I reckon we need to know an awful lot more about him. H
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 11:40:00 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
This is a rather long article on Thomas Vaughan, but it covers what is known about him, including his links with the Brownes and other Kent families, the Woodvilles and Stony Stratford. It isn't certain who his parents, Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monnmouth actually were, but they they don't fit in with the Tretower or Bredwardine Vaughans, but I wouldn't rule out an illegitimate or distant link. I suspect they must have been of some significance, as Thomas was given prominent appointments quite early on.
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/thomas-vaughan-an-intro
Nico
On Saturday, 26 January 2019, 20:22:01 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I noticed in the article that Vaughan stood surety for Tudor (didn't say whether it was a debt or something else). A little insurance in case the Yorkists didn't come out on top? Doug Hilary wrote: See my reply to Nico Doug. I think Sir Thomas, like many of this era, went with the flow ..... I'll update.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-28 15:14:04
ricard1an
Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.
Mary


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-29 10:53:09
Hilary Jones
Mary, the mention of Vaughan's closeness to William Oldhall in 1459 is interesting. I too had read it that he was plotting with him and Alice (Montacute) Neville. Oldhall had one heir, his daughter Mary. She married Sir Walter Gorges and was the mother of Sir Edmund Gorges of Wraxall who married, as his second wife, Stillington's granddaughter Johanna Hampton.
Oldhall also took sanctuary in St Martin le Grand in the mid 1450s. I wonder if Stillington was around then? He didn't get the job as Dean until 1458 but he did seem to spend a lot of his time in London. The Dean till then was Richard Cowdray who was almost certainly related to Joana Cowdray the mother of Elizabeth (Skilling) Wayte :) :) H

On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.


Mary


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-29 11:55:14
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.


Mary


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-29 14:04:33
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico just running off but yes ...


E 210/2694Description: Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
Date: 1477.

It's in the NA. H
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 11:55:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.


Mary


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

2019-01-29 17:13:55
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote:
Hi Doug,
I don't think you are being too inquisitorial. The more the facts can be analysed the better!'

Doug here:
My greatest fear is basing a theory a theory on one item, and then becoming wedded to it, when there really isn't much of anything to support it, so I have to be careful!

Nico continued:
The Tower: The idea of the activity around the Tower being low level makes sense. If there was major unrest, you would need more reinforcements than simply John Howard, and it would have been difficult to avoid wider reporting. However, if there had been some fires and people acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the Tower, then sending Howard to supervise the situation may have seemed enough. The question is, was it enough? Did someone eventually gain entry, and if so who and what happened? Even no rescue attempt actually succeeded, it would be safer to move both the boys at this point, possibly to separate locations. Croyland says they were in the Tower as late as early September (when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales), but he may be wrong.

Doug here:
I can't find a date for the attempt to enter the Tower, do we have one? We know from other sources that there was an attempt to enter the Tower and that 2/3 people were later charged for it, does the date come from their trials? Because I get the sense, perhaps mistakenly, that the plot was foiled before it was put into effect. IOW, Howard was sent to London, not to investigate the aftermath of diversionary fires and a failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard, but rather to investigate and determine who originated the plot. When it comes to the reliability of the Croyland Chronicle, I believe it's fairly good when it comes to actual events and only really slips when trying to report inside information that often appears contradictory to what is actually known of people's recorded attitudes/opinions. As I myself think the boys were at the Tower until after Easter of, probably, 1484, their being there in September of 1483 wouldn't be unexpected.

Nico continued:
The Anlaby Cartulary: You may be correct about this. The roll also records gives an incorrect date for Edward IV's death. Whatever the truth, the Anlaby Cartulary is incorrect, as June 22 is too early. Another (Middleton Collection) account states that the Edward V drowned on June 27 (submersum fuit), again with no mention of what happened to his brother. I think this account is following your logic and has chosen the date after Richard took the throne too randomly. However, is it possible that he drowned after falling into the Thames during a rescue attempt? I'm not sure how the accident would have happened, but could he have fallen while escaping a 'rescuer?' The 'rescuers' may not have had the Princes' best interests at heart, and Edward may have know that. Molinet's account does suggest that around July 22 (5 weeks after being imprisoned), the Princes were murdered and buried in the Tower grounds.

Doug here:
I've been operating on the presumption that, had young Edward died, there'd have been a public requiem mass. As there wasn't one...

Nico continued:
The Requiem: I wish I knew more about the traditions about papal requiems for medieval royalty. This is where Marie could have been helpful. If not the Sistine Chapel, where would Edward IV's requiem have been held? Was it essential to have it held asap after he died, or would it have been appropriate to wait for the Sistine chapel? Still, the date doesn't fit with the tradition of holding it on or close to an anniversary, but is in keeping for Edward V if he died on July 22. I will see if I can find out more on customs surrounding this practice.

Doug here:
Could the fact that Edward was publicly living in sin with what amounted to a concubine at the time of his death help explain the delay? During or prior to the rite of Extreme Unction, Edward would have had to confess his sins, wouldn't he? Would the Pope have the authority to ask the officiating priest if Edward had repented fully, with the understanding that fully included his bigamous marriage? Needless to say, it would take time to get an answer.

Nico continued:
Edward at Ludlow: You raise some interesting questions here. It is true that Henry VII discouraged jousting for young Henry VIII for safety reasons, but he was taught to joust at some point, because it did plenty of it once he became King. I don't know what age boys were taught to joust, but I get the general impression that since riding was essential and learned by a very early age, they would have been introduced to it fairly young. You make a good point about the archery too. The account did say that both boys were practicing, so he must have been well enough to get out and shoot. However, the author doesn't mention if he was good at it, or if it was more about Richard practicing his skills. I suppose it is possible that Edward may have been generally unwell, but could manage a few shots, or possibly he had a learning disability (anything from something mild like dyslexia to something more serious and intellectually compromising) that affected his writing and ability to learn, which caused Anthony Woodville to give up on his education, but wasn't that physically disabled.
I can easily see why Edward V was depressed while in the Tower. Confinement of any kind is depressing, and he had experienced a horrendous upheaval for a young boy. That may also be the reason for Dr. Argentine's visits. Perhaps he had to give him something to calm him down. Under all that pressure, he may well have had a nervous breakdown.

Doug here:
If young Edward did suffer from Attention Deficit Syndrome, even only mildly, his education wouldn't likely progress as rapidly as expected, would it? Even with the backing of the boy's father, one could push the heir to the throne only so hard  or so I'd imagine. The other possibility, of course, is dyslexia. This link was very interesting:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dyslexia/symptoms-causes/syc-20353552

Nico concluded:
As far as I understand, EIV and EW made a few visits to Ludlow - one when Richard of Shrewsbury was born, but not that many. EV does seem to have made visits to London, but how many isn't clear. I believe it is on one such visit that Molinet met both the boys, commenting that Richard was playful, but Edward seemed taciturn and moody. Maybe that was just his personality, or could it have been related to some sort of disability or illness?

Doug here:
Well, as the heir to the throne, young Edward would, more or less, be on display on those occasions when he'd go to London, wouldn't he? If he suffered from any sort of learning disability, even if only in a mild form, he just might find it embarrassing to be put on display when he knew he wasn't able to perform at the level expected. Could the differences in attitude related by Molinet have been explained by the pressure on Edward of simply being the heir to the throne, something his brother didn't have to worry about?
Doug


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



Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-30 11:45:33
Nicholas Brown

Thanks Hilary, that looks like the best evidence for Sir Thomas Vaughan's parentage. I didn't find a Monmouth branch of Vaughans in The Vaughan Family of Wales, which made me think that the Visitation story about Roger Vaughan of Tretower had some validity. However, it may not be entirely without substance. Roger Vaughan of Tretower is too young to be Sir Thomas father as he was still alive in 1485. However, Sir Thomas' family can't have been nobodies, so my guess is now that Robert Vaughan of Monmouth was an illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Sir Thomas was Sir Roger (of Tretower's) nephew.
I didn't find it in the NA, which search criteria did you use? I didn't find anything on them in BHOL either, so I may be missing something.
Nico
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 14:10:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico just running off but yes ...


E 210/2694Description: Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
Date: 1477.

It's in the NA. H
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 11:55:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.


Mary


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

2019-01-30 11:45:43
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I can't find a date for the attempt to enter the Tower, do we have one? We know from other sources that there was an attempt to enter the Tower and that 2/3 people were later charged for it, does the date come from their trials? Because I get the sense, perhaps mistakenly, that the plot was foiled before it was put into effect. IOW, Howard was sent to London, not to investigate the aftermath of diversionary fires and a failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard, but rather to investigate and determine who originated the plot.
JA-H was a bit vague on this because the information is so sketchy, and it is his guess that Howard was going to London because of whatever was happening around the Tower. There is a general impression of unrest in the area towards the end of July. He didn't go into the trial and I don't know if there is any surviving record of the proceedings. If this was the reason for Howard's visit, since some people were arrested, then surely the investigation would focus on those arrested and getting to the bottom of any plots.

I've been operating on the presumption that, had young Edward died, there'd have been a public requiem mass. As there wasn't one...Could the fact that Edward was publicly living in sin with what amounted to a concubine at the time of his death help explain the delay? During or prior to the trite of Extreme Unction, Edward would have had to confess his sins, wouldn't he? Would the Pope have the authority to ask the officiating priest if Edward had repented fully, with the understanding that fully included his bigamous marriage? Needless to say, it would take time to get an answer.
I'm no expert on canon law, but Edward did have a London funeral London that was in keeping with what would have been expected for a medieval king, which must have been public. Beyond these Papal masses for 'King Edward' and Louis XI, I wasn't aware of the tradition of pontifical masses for recently deceased Kings, and I can't find anything that explains exactly what would have been expected. Kings have always had their concubines, so I wouldn't have thought that it would be a bar to having the Pope or a bishop delegated by him to celebrate a requiem mass. Bigamy is worse than simply having a mistress, but Edward may have confessed his sins and received absolution. Whatever he may have confessed would have been between him and the Priest he confessed to, with no-one else knowing the content of the confession. Surely, an inquiry into what he confessed would be crossing the line into breaking the seal of the confessional, but there may have been exceptions. Therefore, if it was normal for a King to have a Papal requiem, I can't see Edward's personal life would be a bar to a him also having one. Also, this was a time when the clergy weren't so chaste themselves. The relevant Pope here was Sixtus IV, who was said to have been 'a lover of boys and sodomites,' some of whom he promoted to important positions and Alexander VI (Borgia) succeeded him. In comparison, Edward IV's sins are comparatively mild, so I think it would be unlikely that too many questions would be asked.

Well, as the heir to the throne, young Edward would, more or less, be on display on those occasions when he'd go to London, wouldn't he? If he suffered from any sort of learning disability, even if only in a mild form, he just might find it embarrassing to be put on display when he knew he wasn't able to perform at the level expected. Could the differences in attitude related by Molinet have been explained by the pressure on Edward of simply being the heir to the throne, something his brother didn't have to worry about?
He would have been on display when visiting London and there are a lot of reasons why that may have made him feel uncomfortable and having a high profile would only have added to the stress. It may have just been his personality that Molinet was commenting on although nothing was actually wrong with him. Alternatively, he may also have had a 'mild' learning disability such as dyslexia, ADD, autism/aspergers etc, which would have interfered with his education. Also, if he was dyspraxic, he may have struggled with writing or anything related to physical co-ordination even though his ability to learn wasn't compromised. If Edward was not physically healthy, another consideration could have been epilepsy, which is often found in conjunction with learning disabilities, especially autistic spectrum ones. Unfortunately, nobody understood these conditions at the time or how to deal with them. If that is why Anthony Woodville gave up on Edward, then it must have been a source of real concern for Edward IV with the regard to the succession. It does put a different perspective on Ann Wroe's observation that Perkin's writing had some resemblance to Anthony Woodville's. AW didn't go to Ludlow, but made regular visits to London, so was he preparing young Richard for a supporting role when EV was King? If Edward V did survive 1483, retreating to a monastery may have been a relief.

Nico
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 17:38:21 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Nico wrote:
Hi Doug,
I don't think you are being too inquisitorial. The more the facts can be analysed the better!'

Doug here:
My greatest fear is basing a theory a theory on one item, and then becoming wedded to it, when there really isn't much of anything to support it, so I have to be careful!

Nico continued:
The Tower: The idea of the activity around the Tower being low level makes sense. If there was major unrest, you would need more reinforcements than simply John Howard, and it would have been difficult to avoid wider reporting. However, if there had been some fires and people acting suspiciously in the vicinity of the Tower, then sending Howard to supervise the situation may have seemed enough. The question is, was it enough? Did someone eventually gain entry, and if so who and what happened? Even no rescue attempt actually succeeded, it would be safer to move both the boys at this point, possibly to separate locations. Croyland says they were in the Tower as late as early September (when Edward of Middleham was invested as Prince of Wales), but he may be wrong.

Doug here:
I can't find a date for the attempt to enter the Tower, do we have one? We know from other sources that there was an attempt to enter the Tower and that 2/3 people were later charged for it, does the date come from their trials? Because I get the sense, perhaps mistakenly, that the plot was foiled before it was put into effect. IOW, Howard was sent to London, not to investigate the aftermath of diversionary fires and a failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard, but rather to investigate and determine who originated the plot. When it comes to the reliability of the Croyland Chronicle, I believe it's fairly good when it comes to actual events and only really slips when trying to report inside information that often appears contradictory to what is actually known of people's recorded attitudes/opinions. As I myself think the boys were at the Tower until after Easter of, probably, 1484, their being there in September of 1483 wouldn't be unexpected.

Nico continued:
The Anlaby Cartulary: You may be correct about this. The roll also records gives an incorrect date for Edward IV's death. Whatever the truth, the Anlaby Cartulary is incorrect, as June 22 is too early. Another (Middleton Collection) account states that the Edward V drowned on June 27 (submersum fuit), again with no mention of what happened to his brother. I think this account is following your logic and has chosen the date after Richard took the throne too randomly. However, is it possible that he drowned after falling into the Thames during a rescue attempt? I'm not sure how the accident would have happened, but could he have fallen while escaping a 'rescuer?' The 'rescuers' may not have had the Princes' best interests at heart, and Edward may have know that. Molinet's account does suggest that around July 22 (5 weeks after being imprisoned), the Princes were murdered and buried in the Tower grounds.

Doug here:
I've been operating on the presumption that, had young Edward died, there'd have been a public requiem mass. As there wasn't one...

Nico continued:
The Requiem: I wish I knew more about the traditions about papal requiems for medieval royalty. This is where Marie could have been helpful. If not the Sistine Chapel, where would Edward IV's requiem have been held? Was it essential to have it held asap after he died, or would it have been appropriate to wait for the Sistine chapel? Still, the date doesn't fit with the tradition of holding it on or close to an anniversary, but is in keeping for Edward V if he died on July 22. I will see if I can find out more on customs surrounding this practice.

Doug here:
Could the fact that Edward was publicly living in sin with what amounted to a concubine at the time of his death help explain the delay? During or prior to the rite of Extreme Unction, Edward would have had to confess his sins, wouldn't he? Would the Pope have the authority to ask the officiating priest if Edward had repented fully, with the understanding that fully included his bigamous marriage? Needless to say, it would take time to get an answer.

Nico continued:
Edward at Ludlow: You raise some interesting questions here. It is true that Henry VII discouraged jousting for young Henry VIII for safety reasons, but he was taught to joust at some point, because it did plenty of it once he became King. I don't know what age boys were taught to joust, but I get the general impression that since riding was essential and learned by a very early age, they would have been introduced to it fairly young. You make a good point about the archery too. The account did say that both boys were practicing, so he must have been well enough to get out and shoot. However, the author doesn't mention if he was good at it, or if it was more about Richard practicing his skills. I suppose it is possible that Edward may have been generally unwell, but could manage a few shots, or possibly he had a learning disability (anything from something mild like dyslexia to something more serious and intellectually compromising) that affected his writing and ability to learn, which caused Anthony Woodville to give up on his education, but wasn't that physically disabled.
I can easily see why Edward V was depressed while in the Tower. Confinement of any kind is depressing, and he had experienced a horrendous upheaval for a young boy. That may also be the reason for Dr. Argentine's visits. Perhaps he had to give him something to calm him down. Under all that pressure, he may well have had a nervous breakdown.

Doug here:
If young Edward did suffer from Attention Deficit Syndrome, even only mildly, his education wouldn't likely progress as rapidly as expected, would it? Even with the backing of the boy's father, one could push the heir to the throne only so hard  or so I'd imagine. The other possibility, of course, is dyslexia. This link was very interesting:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/dyslexia/symptoms-causes/syc-20353552

Nico concluded:
As far as I understand, EIV and EW made a few visits to Ludlow - one when Richard of Shrewsbury was born, but not that many. EV does seem to have made visits to London, but how many isn't clear. I believe it is on one such visit that Molinet met both the boys, commenting that Richard was playful, but Edward seemed taciturn and moody. Maybe that was just his personality, or could it have been related to some sort of disability or illness?

Doug here:
Well, as the heir to the throne, young Edward would, more or less, be on display on those occasions when he'd go to London, wouldn't he? If he suffered from any sort of learning disability, even if only in a mild form, he just might find it embarrassing to be put on display when he knew he wasn't able to perform at the level expected. Could the differences in attitude related by Molinet have been explained by the pressure on Edward of simply being the heir to the throne, something his brother didn't have to worry about?
Doug

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



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-01-30 13:22:38
Doug Stamate
Hilary, The thought crossed my mind that perhaps Edward IV had what we call over here his own kitchen Cabinet; people not appointed to offices of State but relied on for advice? The term wouldn't apply to Hastings, if only because of his position as Captain of Calais or Rivers as young Edward's Governor, but it might to Vaughan. Doug Hilary wrote: Your memory is correct! Eleanor Fitzalan is also the mother of Sir George Browne, one of the very few people executed for the 1483 rebellions as a 'leader in Kent'. We don't know why he was singled out as his brother, who was also a rebel, didn't get the chop and was knighted and made Captain of Calais by HT. So we have two key people - Clfford and G. Browne in this circle. I'm starting to do a bit more work on Vaughan - I think we should. Trouble is, as they say on Wiki, he is easily confused with Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, Buck's old adversary. Even the Westminster Abbey guide gives him the wrong daughter. The bit of I've done so far indicates he was more active in London than Wales - he is in deeds with Oliver King's father and with a couple of people called Vaux! And, Mary if you're there, our old friend John Newton! He certainly rose to dizzy heights with Edward very fast, often named in the same clauses as Rivers and Hastings. I think we may be doing a bit more debunking of Sir Thomas the 'martyr tutor' persecuted by Richard.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-30 13:42:01
Doug Stamate
Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-30 17:07:06
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, Sir Roger Vaughan was executed at Chepstow in May 1471 (captured by Jasper Tudor after Tewkesbury). He would have been about 72 since his father fought at Agincourt. His son, the other Sir Thomas, must have been born about 1414 and left a will dated 27 Jul 1487. On genealogy sites they often get his death as 1483, confused with our TV. Roger left another Sir Roger (died 1500) and five daughters that we know of including one married to Morgan Gamage.
There are loads of mentions of our TV in BHOL under both Vaughan and Vaghan. Vaghan seems the common spelling in the Fine Rolls. I do think the NA thing I sent you is a little odd. As you know I've now waded through a lot of 15 century wills and chantry foundings. I find it odd that the prayers are for his parents, himself and young Edward. Why omit his wife and children?
Sorry - just rushing through again! H
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 11:52:31 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Thanks Hilary, that looks like the best evidence for Sir Thomas Vaughan's parentage. I didn't find a Monmouth branch of Vaughans in The Vaughan Family of Wales, which made me think that the Visitation story about Roger Vaughan of Tretower had some validity. However, it may not be entirely without substance. Roger Vaughan of Tretower is too young to be Sir Thomas father as he was still alive in 1485. However, Sir Thomas' family can't have been nobodies, so my guess is now that Robert Vaughan of Monmouth was an illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Sir Thomas was Sir Roger (of Tretower's) nephew.
I didn't find it in the NA, which search criteria did you use? I didn't find anything on them in BHOL either, so I may be missing something.
Nico
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 14:10:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico just running off but yes ...


E 210/2694Description: Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
Date: 1477.

It's in the NA. H
On Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 11:55:22 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
In the Heraldic Visitations of Wales (p 44 and 106), Sir Thomas Vaughan is described in a footnote as the youngest illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower by an illegitimate daughter of the Prior of the Monastery of Abergavenny, named Prior Coch. If so, are there any records (contemporary or near) that say that he was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth, and did they actually exist? The visitation says that Anne, who married Sir Henry Wogan was his sole heir, but also mentions a son Henry/Harry .who used the surname Parry. I agree with writers who are sceptical that he was Thomas Vaughan's son, especially since Parry, means 'son of Harry' - ap Hari . Also, he would have been alive in 1483, and should have been Thomas heir, not Anne. Therefore, Henry Parry's father was probably someone named Henry Vaughan. That error aside, if Sir Thomas Vaughan was the illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, that would have given him the connections that open doors to the circles he moved in and the appointments that he was given. However, if Sir Thomas was born around 1410, he would be too old to be the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, so it is more likely that his father was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, making him an illegitimate half-brother of Sir Roger of Tretower. It is difficult to estimate exactly how old the Vaughans were, but Sir Roger and his brothers appear to have been born around the turn of the century. Judging from his timeline, Sir Thomas was probably born by the early 1420s. If Sir Roger of Tretower (d1471)was born in the late 1390s, then Sir Thomas may have been his son, but I think it is more likely Sir Roger of Bredwardine (d1415).https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/42https://archive.org/details/heraldicvisitati_01dwnn/page/106

The relationship to the Vaughan family may have been a factor in his appointment as chamberlain to Edward V. While it is true that he spent most of his adult life outside of Wales, mostly in and around London, he must have maintained some links with the his family, which was a powerful one in the Marches and strongly aligned to the House of York. This may explain why Sir Thomas changed his allegiance even though he was doing well under Henry VI. It is also likely that had some contact with Richard of York and young Edward during his time at Ludlow, which would have coincided with Sir Thomas' tenure as Steward of Eways and Abergavenny in the 1440s. As Hilary says, there wasn't anything that marked him out as particularly capable or talented, but he may have been one of those people who went a long way with loyalty, dependability and charm with the right people.
The Hastings link definitely needs more investigation since it is clear that he dealings with him going back a long way, and his execution so close to that of Hastings is too much of a coincidence for me.
Nico
On Monday, 28 January 2019, 15:14:09 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting article Nico. It did cross my mind that Thomas could be descended from an illegitimate line of the Vaughans. Also in one of the things that I read about the Vaughans it was suggested that Vaughan could have denoted someone who was the younger in a family. Will have to dig out my Welsh dictionary and look up Fychan. There is also the problem with the Welsh patronymic surname so his father may have been known as Robert ap Vaughan. There is nothing that I can find that gives any clues to Thomas Vaughan's family background.


Mary


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 10:05:10
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, according to Nico's link he was back in favour with the Lancastrians by April 1460 and sometime in 1459 (I'll have to look it up again in the CFR) he along with others was given mainprise of some of Jasper Tudor's lands by Henry VI. I reckon he went with the flow. H
On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 10:19:04
Hilary Jones
You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 13:10:33
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriage.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
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

2019-01-31 14:52:51
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: JA-H was a bit vague on this [the attempt to enter the Tower] because the information is so sketchy, and it is his guess that Howard was going to London because of whatever was happening around the Tower. There is a general impression of unrest in the area towards the end of July. He didn't go into the trial and I don't know if there is any surviving record of the proceedings. If this was the reason for Howard's visit, since some people were arrested, then surely the investigation would focus on those arrested and getting to the bottom of any plots.
Doug here: Well, it does look to me as if the plot was uncovered before it could get off the ground and Norfolk was sent to find out whatever he could about what the aim of the plot was and who was involved. Something perhaps to remember is that, while the plot was discovered in late July 1483, that doesn't mean it was supposed to have been carried out at that time. The origins of what is termed Buckingham's Rebellion almost certainly were earlier than when the rebellion broke out in October 1483. What do you think of the idea that young Edward and Richard were to have been taken from the Tower while Richard's attention was centered on the ceremonies at York when his son was created Prince of Wales? The ceremony occurred in early September, so the attention of Richard and most of his advisors would have been diverted away from London several weeks beforehand as preparations got underway. Which leads me to wonder if those diversionary fires weren't possibly planned, not for sometime in July, but rather for middle or late August? Nico continued: I'm no expert on canon law, but Edward did have a London funeral London that was in keeping with what would have been expected for a medieval king, which must have been public. Beyond these Papal masses for 'King Edward' and Louis XI, I wasn't aware of the tradition of pontifical masses for recently deceased Kings, and I can't find anything that explains exactly what would have been expected. Kings have always had their concubines, so I wouldn't have thought that it would be a bar to having the Pope or a bishop delegated by him to celebrate a requiem mass. Bigamy is worse than simply having a mistress, but Edward may have confessed his sins and received absolution. Whatever he may have confessed would have been between him and the Priest he confessed to, with no-one else knowing the content of the confession. Surely, an inquiry into what he confessed would be crossing the line into breaking the seal of the confessional, but there may have been exceptions. Therefore, if it was normal for a King to have a Papal requiem, I can't see Edward's personal life would be a bar to a him also having one. Also, this was a time when the clergy weren't so chaste themselves. The relevant Pope here was Sixtus IV, who was said to have been 'a lover of boys and sodomites,' some of whom he promoted to important positions and Alexander VI (Borgia) succeeded him. In comparison, Edward IV's sins are comparatively mild, so I think it would be unlikely that too many questions would be asked. Doug here: I mentioned Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville because it seemed to me there was a difference between having a concubine, on the side so to speak, and deliberately profaning the Holy rites of marriage by knowingly entering into a bigamous marriage. I think there might be a difference, but I'm not certain.
Nico concluded:
He would have been on display when visiting London and there are a lot of reasons why that may have made him feel uncomfortable and having a high profile would only have added to the stress. It may have just been his personality that Molinet was commenting on although nothing was actually wrong with him. Alternatively, he may also have had a 'mild' learning disability such as dyslexia, ADD, autism/aspergers etc, which would have interfered with his education. Also, if he was dyspraxic, he may have struggled with writing or anything related to physical co-ordination even though his ability to learn wasn't compromised. If Edward was not physically healthy, another consideration could have been epilepsy, which is often found in conjunction with learning disabilities, especially autistic spectrum ones. Unfortunately, nobody understood these conditions at the time or how to deal with them. If that is why Anthony Woodville gave up on Edward, then it must have been a source of real concern for Edward IV with the regard to the succession. It does put a different perspective on Ann Wroe's observation that Perkin's writing had some resemblance to Anthony Woodville's. AW didn't go to Ludlow, but made regular visits to London, so was he preparing young Richard for a supporting role when EV was King? If Edward V did survive 1483, retreating to a monastery may have been a relief. Doug here: FWIW, right now I think I'll stay with a possible form of mild dyslexia; IOW, just enough to not really be noticeable, but yet bad enough to slow his rate of book learning and anything attendant to it, such as writing. Add a mild form of dyslexia to stressses and strains of royal childhood (or even an average childhood) and that might account for what we have. We don't seem to have any signs of his parents being particularly worried about his health/wellbeing, so I tend to think his general health was likely as good as could be expected for the times and his situation. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 16:09:29
ricard1an
Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 16:46:03
Hilary Jones
Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-01-31 16:46:58
Hilary Jones
Forgot to say, they were also the Talbots' lawyers. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:45:59 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-01 11:53:53
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I was looking for more information on Roger Vaughan and Margaret Audley, and now realize that the 1477 Monmouth Priory defeasance can't be a reference to her, as she would still have been alive at that point. In the Calendar of the Fine Rolls there is a reference to a Writ of Clausit Diem Extremum dated January 28 1481 for 'Margaret, late the wife of Henry Ross knight, (late lady Powys); Southampton and Wilts.' She was married 4 times:1. Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville and Lord Powys, (before 1458-1466)2. Roger Vaughan - until 14713. Sir Maurice Berkeley (until 1473; she is in his will dated 1473)
4. After 1473 until 1480/81I will keep looking for Robert and Margaret Vaughan. I'm going back to my earlier suspicion that Robert was an illegitimate son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Margaret was his wife, possibly connected to a significant family such as the ones just mentioned. I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:47:19 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say, they were also the Talbots' lawyers. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:45:59 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
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

2019-02-01 12:56:04
Nicholas Brown
What do you think of the idea that young Edward and Richard were to have been taken from the Tower while Richard's attention was centered on the ceremonies at York when his son was created Prince of Wales? The ceremony occurred in early September, so the attention of Richard and most of his advisors would have been diverted away from London several weeks beforehand as preparations got underway. Which leads me to wonder if those diversionary fires weren't possibly planned, not for sometime in July, but rather for middle or late August?
I wish we knew if there had actually been any fires or whether the idea of diversionary fires was some thing that was revealed as part of a plot that was uncovered in July. The problem is that we don't know what actually happened. The plotters could have lit a few fires as a dry run for the main event later in the year. The fires sound like the could have been part of something bigger than simply removing the Princes from the Tower and mid August to early September would have been an auspicious time as everyone would have been away and distracted. Buckingham's dissatisfaction had most likely set in before the coronation (July 6), when it was clear that he wouldn't be as powerful as he had hoped. I can't remember exactly when he was at Brecon with Morton, but wasn't he Constable of the Tower at this point? He would have had unlimited access and as long as he held that position the Princes were effectively in his custody, so there was no need for him to abduct them and draw attention to himself. If someone was trying to remove them, I think the Woodvilles were the most likely culprits.

I mentioned Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville because it seemed to me there was a difference between having a concubine, on the side so to speak, and deliberately profaning the Holy rites of marriage by knowingly entering into a bigamous marriage. I think there might be a difference, but I'm not certain.
I think you are right. Knowingly, marrying someone bigamously in a church ceremony is profaning the sacred religious ceremony of marriage and definitely worse that keeping a concubine. However, if Pope's lifestyle is even more sinful, I can't seem him pointing a finger.

FWIW, right now I think I'll stay with a possible form of mild dyslexia; IOW, just enough to not really be noticeable, but yet bad enough to slow his rate of book learning and anything attendant to it, such as writing. Add a mild form of dyslexia to stressses and strains of royal childhood (or even an average childhood) and that might account for what we have. We don't seem to have any signs of his parents being particularly worried about his health/wellbeing, so I tend to think his general health was likely as good as could be expected for the times and his situation.
Dyslexia is a possibility. A lot of people suffer from it, but most people at the that time when literacy was low would have been unaware of it. However, literacy would have been very important for a future King, and if he had this condition it may have caused anxiety and low self esteem. The whole idea of born to be the future King is a monumental pressure in itself and even a someone who was slightly introverted would struggle. Also, if young Edward were ill, could it be kept quiet at Ludlow? One thing that led me to discount the idea of the story of Edward with the septic teeth suggested by the skeleton in the Tower was that I had thought that if he were chronically ill, there would be records of doctors and buying expensive or unusual medicines. However, these would most probably have been paid for through the Ludlow accounts many of which don't appear to have survived.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 15:13:46 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: JA-H was a bit vague on this [the attempt to enter the Tower] because the information is so sketchy, and it is his guess that Howard was going to London because of whatever was happening around the Tower. There is a general impression of unrest in the area towards the end of July. He didn't go into the trial and I don't know if there is any surviving record of the proceedings. If this was the reason for Howard's visit, since some people were arrested, then surely the investigation would focus on those arrested and getting to the bottom of any plots.
Doug here: Well, it does look to me as if the plot was uncovered before it could get off the ground and Norfolk was sent to find out whatever he could about what the aim of the plot was and who was involved. Something perhaps to remember is that, while the plot was discovered in late July 1483, that doesn't mean it was supposed to have been carried out at that time. The origins of what is termed Buckingham's Rebellion almost certainly were earlier than when the rebellion broke out in October 1483. What do you think of the idea that young Edward and Richard were to have been taken from the Tower while Richard's attention was centered on the ceremonies at York when his son was created Prince of Wales? The ceremony occurred in early September, so the attention of Richard and most of his advisors would have been diverted away from London several weeks beforehand as preparations got underway. Which leads me to wonder if those diversionary fires weren't possibly planned, not for sometime in July, but rather for middle or late August? Nico continued: I'm no expert on canon law, but Edward did have a London funeral London that was in keeping with what would have been expected for a medieval king, which must have been public. Beyond these Papal masses for 'King Edward' and Louis XI, I wasn't aware of the tradition of pontifical masses for recently deceased Kings, and I can't find anything that explains exactly what would have been expected. Kings have always had their concubines, so I wouldn't have thought that it would be a bar to having the Pope or a bishop delegated by him to celebrate a requiem mass. Bigamy is worse than simply having a mistress, but Edward may have confessed his sins and received absolution. Whatever he may have confessed would have been between him and the Priest he confessed to, with no-one else knowing the content of the confession. Surely, an inquiry into what he confessed would be crossing the line into breaking the seal of the confessional, but there may have been exceptions. Therefore, if it was normal for a King to have a Papal requiem, I can't see Edward's personal life would be a bar to a him also having one. Also, this was a time when the clergy weren't so chaste themselves. The relevant Pope here was Sixtus IV, who was said to have been 'a lover of boys and sodomites,' some of whom he promoted to important positions and Alexander VI (Borgia) succeeded him. In comparison, Edward IV's sins are comparatively mild, so I think it would be unlikely that too many questions would be asked. Doug here: I mentioned Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville because it seemed to me there was a difference between having a concubine, on the side so to speak, and deliberately profaning the Holy rites of marriage by knowingly entering into a bigamous marriage. I think there might be a difference, but I'm not certain.
Nico concluded:
He would have been on display when visiting London and there are a lot of reasons why that may have made him feel uncomfortable and having a high profile would only have added to the stress. It may have just been his personality that Molinet was commenting on although nothing was actually wrong with him. Alternatively, he may also have had a 'mild' learning disability such as dyslexia, ADD, autism/aspergers etc, which would have interfered with his education. Also, if he was dyspraxic, he may have struggled with writing or anything related to physical co-ordination even though his ability to learn wasn't compromised. If Edward was not physically healthy, another consideration could have been epilepsy, which is often found in conjunction with learning disabilities, especially autistic spectrum ones. Unfortunately, nobody understood these conditions at the time or how to deal with them. If that is why Anthony Woodville gave up on Edward, then it must have been a source of real concern for Edward IV with the regard to the succession. It does put a different perspective on Ann Wroe's observation that Perkin's writing had some resemblance to Anthony Woodville's. AW didn't go to Ludlow, but made regular visits to London, so was he preparing young Richard for a supporting role when EV was King? If Edward V did survive 1483, retreating to a monastery may have been a relief. Doug here: FWIW, right now I think I'll stay with a possible form of mild dyslexia; IOW, just enough to not really be noticeable, but yet bad enough to slow his rate of book learning and anything attendant to it, such as writing. Add a mild form of dyslexia to stressses and strains of royal childhood (or even an average childhood) and that might account for what we have. We don't seem to have any signs of his parents being particularly worried about his health/wellbeing, so I tend to think his general health was likely as good as could be expected for the times and his situation. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-01 13:02:53
Hilary Jones
I think I'm beginning to understand a bit more about connections here. The clue is Alice Montagu heiress of Thomas Montagu 4 Earl of Salisbury, wife of Richard Neville and mother of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. Her daughter Joan married Sir William Fitzalan cousin of the Eleanor who married first Thomas Browne and then our TV. Sir William's son Thomas married EW's sister Margaret. So was Browne also involved in the plotting which is why he was executed in 1460 and TV knew of Eleanor through his involvement in plotting with Alice?

And was it her son, Warwick, who recommended him to Edward? The Fitzalans also have connections with Lytchett Maltravers in Dorset and Sir William Fitzalan's stepmother, Elizabeth Talbot, was the aunt of Eleanor Butler.
I'm trying to put lots of pieces of jigsaw together. I still don't really know why Richard executed Vaughan or why Edward, who had so little in common with TV, favoured him so much. I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford? Could it possibly be that Vaughan knew about the Precontract and revealed it during his imprisonment, perhaps to Hastings? Richard, in denial, thought they were plotting treason and too hastily executed the pair of them - only to regret it when someone else, Stillington perhaps, stepped forward and said they had been telling the truth?

As you say back to work. Your info on the Writ Clausem is most helpful. I'm having a job to find Henry Ros except in some posts about her on the web. H
On Friday, 1 February 2019, 11:53:58 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I was looking for more information on Roger Vaughan and Margaret Audley, and now realize that the 1477 Monmouth Priory defeasance can't be a reference to her, as she would still have been alive at that point. In the Calendar of the Fine Rolls there is a reference to a Writ of Clausit Diem Extremum dated January 28 1481 for 'Margaret, late the wife of Henry Ross knight, (late lady Powys); Southampton and Wilts.' She was married 4 times:1. Richard Grey, 3rd Earl of Tankerville and Lord Powys, (before 1458-1466)2. Roger Vaughan - until 14713. Sir Maurice Berkeley (until 1473; she is in his will dated 1473)
4. After 1473 until 1480/81I will keep looking for Robert and Margaret Vaughan. I'm going back to my earlier suspicion that Robert was an illegitimate son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine, and Margaret was his wife, possibly connected to a significant family such as the ones just mentioned. I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:47:19 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to say, they were also the Talbots' lawyers. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:45:59 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Hi, John Newton was of course Eleanor Butler's brother in law once removed - i.e. his wife Isabel was sister to Joan the wife of Eleanor Talbot's brother John. The Newtons, or Craddock-Newtons, were Judges/lawyers who moved from Glamorgan to Yatton, Somerset in 1446. John Newton is one of the people who could have witnessed, or known about, the Sub-Contract. His family did pretty well under HT. Their neighbours, the Gorges, were Squires of the Body to EIV. Both families married Stillington's granddaughters. East Harptree, where they lived was Stillington's first prebedendary in about 1442.
I did think about the confusion between Roger and Robert, I have yet to find an eligible Robert. Like you I keep looking - and trying different spellings. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 13:25:51 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
600 livres is a very large sum of money to lend to lend as bond for Newton, so they must known each other well. The source of Vaughan's wealth was most likely from the marriage to Eleanor Browne and land that she brought to the marriag..e.

Sorry I confused Roger Vaughan with his son in my earlier post. Medieval family trees can make your head spin after a while. The general estimate of the ages of the sons of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine is around the turn of the century, but if his son, the other Sir Thomas was born around 1414, then RV was most likely slightly older than estimated, probably in his mid 70s when he was executed at Tewkesbury (the Vaughans seem to have had the longevity gene).In that case, he can be a likely candidate for being out Sir Thomas' father, and he was said to have had a number of illegitimate children. His second wife was Margaret Audley, so are the 'Robert and Margaret Vaughan' a reference to them, with whoever wrote it confusing Roger with Robert. It does seem unusual that he doesn't mention his wife, who died in 1469, but perhaps he made provision for her elsewhere, and the bequest for masses to be said at Monmouth Priory because they had some association with it. Did you find any other references to 'Roger and Margaret Vaughan?' Margaret Audley can't have been his mother, but may have been described as a 'parent' becaue she was his father's wife. She may have been younger than him and was unlikely to have married Roger Vaughan of Tretower before 1461, when her brother Lord Audley changed sides to the Yorkists. Also, if Margaret was the daughter of the previous Lord Audley's second wife, she would have been Edward IV's cousin. Perhaps that connection was helpful to Sir Thomas.

I will keep looking.
Nico
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 10:19:09 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You might find this interesting Doug/Nico

'[Other persons attainted.]21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459'
I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well :
'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset.Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472'
600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington!
There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort..H



On Wednesday, 30 January 2019, 13:44:41 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, According to that earlier link you provided about Vaughan, he was at the battle of Ludford Bridge in 1459. If this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ludford_Bridge is correct, following the battle, Richard of York fled into Wales, leaving his wife and his sons George and Richard behind. The Wikipedia article says the Lancastrians got drunk and looted the town after the battle. Perhaps Vaughan gained his entrée into higher circles because of something he [Vaughan] did then? Remained behind to protect the York's family, perhaps? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, I'm at a stage where I think anything is possible and there is still this loop between the Newtons and the Moyles. There are a few things emerging: Vaughan and Hastings appear in quite a few deeds together and are treated by Edward as though they are equals Vaughan came basically from nowhere till he honed in on Henry VI and then betrayed him - I have the proof that he wasn't Thomas of Tretower but indeed the son of Robert and Margaret of Monmouth and who are they, well I haven't found them yet? From reading all the rewards and honours heaped on him (including the Margaret marriage negotiation and the right to wear the clothes of the nobility) you'd think Edward 'owed' him something; much more than Stillington His primary 'hunting ground' was London, very little to do with Wales. Still working, early days.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-01 22:31:24
Hilary Jones
Mary just found this. Yahoo had trashed you!!! Yes indeed! Absolutely it all comes back to Glamorgan, to Somerset, and possibly right back to Percy and Owen Glendower. Eileen's nest grows larger. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:09:32 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-02 14:23:09
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
You may be right about Warwick's mother and Thomas Browne. I haven't found anything that outlines exactly what he did to be executed. Does anyone know what the plot was about? An introduction from Warwick could have encouraged Edward to take Vaughan seriously and Eleanor Browne's network would also have been helpful. It never ceases to amaze me how incestuous everyone was back then, nest of vipers certainly.
He must have had something to keep in favour with Edward for so long, so either he was very competent at what Edward needed him to do or he had something on him, perhaps throwing in the right amount of flattery. I can see Edward liking someone who made him feel important. How many people may have known about the precontract is subject to question, but Vaughan does connect to some people who may have known. I always regarded Vaughan as spare part in a Woodville plot, but there may have been more to it.
Nico


On Friday, 1 February 2019, 22:31:29 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary just found this. Yahoo had trashed you!!! Yes indeed! Absolutely it all comes back to Glamorgan, to Somerset, and possibly right back to Percy and Owen Glendower. Eileen's nest grows larger. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:09:32 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-02 16:40:59
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico - yes. And today I've found a website which says that Roger Vaughan did indeed have an illegitimate son called Thomas. It would make so much sense as there are other links too. So where do Robert and Margaret come from? Was it just a translation mistake of Roger for Robert. I'll see if I can find the original (which I think was on the your website link). H
On Saturday, 2 February 2019, 14:23:13 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
You may be right about Warwick's mother and Thomas Browne. I haven't found anything that outlines exactly what he did to be executed. Does anyone know what the plot was about? An introduction from Warwick could have encouraged Edward to take Vaughan seriously and Eleanor Browne's network would also have been helpful. It never ceases to amaze me how incestuous everyone was back then, nest of vipers certainly.
He must have had something to keep in favour with Edward for so long, so either he was very competent at what Edward needed him to do or he had something on him, perhaps throwing in the right amount of flattery. I can see Edward liking someone who made him feel important. How many people may have known about the precontract is subject to question, but Vaughan does connect to some people who may have known. I always regarded Vaughan as spare part in a Woodville plot, but there may have been more to it.
Nico


On Friday, 1 February 2019, 22:31:29 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary just found this. Yahoo had trashed you!!! Yes indeed! Absolutely it all comes back to Glamorgan, to Somerset, and possibly right back to Percy and Owen Glendower. Eileen's nest grows larger. H
On Thursday, 31 January 2019, 16:09:32 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Add to that the Vaughan connections to the Herberts, William Herbert, died 1469, was the son of William ap Thomas the founder of Raglan Castle who was an adherent of the Duke of York. In 1461 E4 rewarded William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronymic and after the decisive Yorkist victory( Mortimers Cross, Towton?)Herbert replaced Jasper Tudor as Earl of Pembroke which gave him control of Pembroke Castle. Herbert's mother was Gwladys ferch Daffydd Gam. Her first husband had been Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine and they had two sons who were then brought up alongside her ap Thomas/ Herbert sons. If Thomas Vaughan was an illegitimate son of this Roger Vaughan maybe he was in their company too. One of William Herbert's sisters married Sir Henry Stradling son of Edward Stradling of St Donats and Gwenllian Berkerolles, co heir of Sir Lawrence Berkerolles. Also I think, though I am not certain, that Daffydd Gam's family married into the Turbeville family of Coity Castle. Added to that we have the possible connection of Matthew Craddock to John Newton and to top it all Tudor was brought up with the Herberts at Pembroke. As Eileen would say "what a nest of vipers".

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-02 22:37:33
ricard1an
Just read the Dictionary of Welsh Biography regarding Roger Vaughan who was executed by Jasper. It said that he had several illegitimate children and names some of them and gives details of Vaughan families they founded. However, it also said one of these illegitimate children named Thomas was long imprisoned in France and that Edward gave £40 towards his ranson. Now if I remember rightly wasn't that our Thomas? If so he could well be the illegitimate son of of Roger Vaughan who died in 1471. He also had a legitimate son named Thomas. I think that he was known as Black Vaughan.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-03 19:02:05
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol


Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 10:19:53
Hilary Jones
Hi Mary (et al), was the ransom you were talking about the one when he, Malpas and Hattyclif were captured by pirates with the treasure? So I honestly don't understand the Robert and Margaret bit, unless it's a mis-translation or a deliberate red herring - though I can't think why.
What we have I reckon is a huge jigsaw puzzle, you know the 2000 pieces kind. I'm beginning to put some pieces in separate piles.
To start with there's the Stillington pile. Our 3 plotters, Alice (Montagu) Neville, William Oldhall and TV all have links with Stillington's 3 grandchildren. Oldhall is the grandfather of one of their husbands, TV takes a huge bond from their guardian and the father-in-law of another, and Alice - if visitations are to be believed - is the sister-in-law of their paternal grandmother. Cross over to Thomas of Tretower and the third granddaughter Lucy is married to John ap Morgan, who is related to the Herberts and who appears in several deeds with Thomas of Tretower. The Stillington family and its associates were in Richard's affinity at Yorkshire and, as we know, he inherited all this from the Nevilles. What's the betting that Alice spotted the talents of the young Stillington and shaped his future direction, even to his first prebendary in East Harptree?
Then there's the 'London' pile. Our TV since the early 1450s was moving in the same London circles as the Brownes, Cosyns, the Beaumonts and Oliver King, to name but a few. He appears to have been quite litigious and there are a couple of cases in the NA involving a Thomas Vaughan and his wife Alice, formerly the wife of Richard Raulyns. Raulyns was a London sheriff in the 1470s. Did TV have a second wife? Then there's Tretower Thomas. He also had London connections. His second wife, Jane (Lady Ferrers) Verdun was first the wife of the merchant Thomas Ilam. Ilam had a daughter Margaret who married Sir John Shaa. He was a nephew of Sir Edmund Shaa, Mayor who supported Richard and Ralf Shaa who preached the famous sermon. Sir John's daughter, Etheldreda married John Writtle, William Ayloffe and John Gainsford! Yes I do think the two TVs were related.
Finally, there are the missing pieces. How did our TV have such influence over Edward? Were he and Hastings buddies - there is some talk of him having gone into exile with Edward? What was his relationship with the Woodvilles and why were the dates of his execution and that of Hastings so close? He had after all been in custody (as had they all) for several weeks. It's a question Mathew Lewis asks.
An awful lot more digging to do but I think we begin to creep there. H

On Saturday, 2 February 2019, 22:37:41 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just read the Dictionary of Welsh Biography regarding Roger Vaughan who was executed by Jasper. It said that he had several illegitimate children and names some of them and gives details of Vaughan families they founded. However, it also said one of these illegitimate children named Thomas was long imprisoned in France and that Edward gave £40 towards his ranson. Now if I remember rightly wasn't that our Thomas? If so he could well be the illegitimate son of of Roger Vaughan who died in 1471. He also had a legitimate son named Thomas. I think that he was known as Black Vaughan.


Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 10:44:59
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol, I wasn't even suggesting any of this when I wrote that sentence, so sorry. Yes they were all put through the proper judicial process and I think we agree that, from what we ourselves know, the verdict against Rivers and Grey was correct. Richard could of course have had the power to save them had he chosen to and perhaps if the Hastings incident had not occurred he might have chosen an alternate punishment? Who knows?
The point I was making was that because we don't have the paperwork of the trials we don't know of what Thomas Vaughan was convicted. Was it for colluding with Rivers and Grey; as he was guarding the young king he would hardly have been there to strike a blow at Richard? If it's collusion it seems a bit harsh - to put it in perspective Richard could have executed all the 1483 rebels for the same but chose not to. So it must have been something bad, and I'd like to know what. Could it be plotting with Hastings?
I've always thought that I wouldn't like to have been the one who told Richard about the Pre-contract. Richard's whole life had been based around the concept of loyalty. For someone to suggest to him that Edward's children were bastards and that Edward himself had concealed this would take some digesting. He could take it that the person (s) were themselves acting treacherously, that they were traitors trying to bring down the HOY at its weakest moment. The more one thinks about it one can understand why Stillington, both a lawyer, a bishop and a Yorkshireman, was probably the one appointed to look into it and his name has forever after been associated as its author.
So if Vaughan (to hopefully save his neck) and Hastings had acted in what was actually the correct way in seeking to bring this to the attention of Richard or the Council it could have been misconstrued as a lie and they as traitors. Something that Richard would come to regret.
Just my thoughts. H (PS still fighting Yahoo to upload the Bosworth info)
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:08 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol



Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 10:51:59
Nicholas Brown
https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-TRE-1450https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483?query=gwallter&field=content
Hi,
As Carol points out, Vaughan can't have been the innocent victim that he is sometimes portrayed as, and must have had considerable involvement in the Woodville plot, most likely anticipating being handsomely rewarded for his assistance. Like Hastings he may have had good reason to fear loss of power and position under Richard. Since he and Hastings went back a long way, could he be the missing link with Hastings involvement in a plot that appeared to be for the Woodvilles' benefit? He may have been a go-between who was able to smooth over the longstanding mistrust between Hastings and the Woodvilles.
Back to his origins, his earliest recorded position was steward and receiver of Ewyas in the early 1440s. The Vaughans and the Herbert family were also associated with that area, so I still think he is something to do with the Vaughans of Bredwardine/Tretower/Hergest. The reference to the ransom paid by Edward does sound like the one paid for our Thomas, but he wasn't imprisoned for a long time and he was back long before 1477. I had a look for the reference in the Fine and Patent Rolls, but didn't see it. I wonder if this is a combination of error and fact. Same for the Monmouth Priory defeasement; ie. Robert should read Roger, and Margaret is Sir TV's mother, but was the daughter of Prior Coch not Margaret Audley. If not that, I still think they are closely related. The Stillington links are interesting too.

Nico
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:07 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol



Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 11:22:48
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, you might just get into this without a subscription if you look quickly. Look at 12 down the bottom.
Stirnet

Stirnet


Perhaps we should also look at Adam Moleyns? H
On Monday, 4 February 2019, 11:15:08 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-TRE-1450https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483?query=gwallter&field=content
Hi,
As Carol points out, Vaughan can't have been the innocent victim that he is sometimes portrayed as, and must have had considerable involvement in the Woodville plot, most likely anticipating being handsomely rewarded for his assistance. Like Hastings he may have had good reason to fear loss of power and position under Richard. Since he and Hastings went back a long way, could he be the missing link with Hastings involvement in a plot that appeared to be for the Woodvilles' benefit? He may have been a go-between who was able to smooth over the longstanding mistrust between Hastings and the Woodvilles.
Back to his origins, his earliest recorded position was steward and receiver of Ewyas in the early 1440s. The Vaughans and the Herbert family were also associated with that area, so I still think he is something to do with the Vaughans of Bredwardine/Tretower/Hergest. The reference to the ransom paid by Edward does sound like the one paid for our Thomas, but he wasn't imprisoned for a long time and he was back long before 1477. I had a look for the reference in the Fine and Patent Rolls, but didn't see it. I wonder if this is a combination of error and fact. Same for the Monmouth Priory defeasement; ie. Robert should read Roger, and Margaret is Sir TV's mother, but was the daughter of Prior Coch not Margaret Audley. If not that, I still think they are closely related. The Stillington links are interesting too.

Nico
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:07 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol



Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 11:30:45
Hilary Jones
Interesting that he is called 'the younger' here!
Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the following, retaining them for... | The National Archives

Parties to Indenture: Indentures between the king and the following, ret...

The National Archives

The official archive of the UK government. Our vision is to lead and transform information management, guarantee...


H
On Monday, 4 February 2019, 11:15:08 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-TRE-1450https://biography.wales/article/s-VAUG-THO-1483?query=gwallter&field=content
Hi,
As Carol points out, Vaughan can't have been the innocent victim that he is sometimes portrayed as, and must have had considerable involvement in the Woodville plot, most likely anticipating being handsomely rewarded for his assistance. Like Hastings he may have had good reason to fear loss of power and position under Richard. Since he and Hastings went back a long way, could he be the missing link with Hastings involvement in a plot that appeared to be for the Woodvilles' benefit? He may have been a go-between who was able to smooth over the longstanding mistrust between Hastings and the Woodvilles.
Back to his origins, his earliest recorded position was steward and receiver of Ewyas in the early 1440s. The Vaughans and the Herbert family were also associated with that area, so I still think he is something to do with the Vaughans of Bredwardine/Tretower/Hergest. The reference to the ransom paid by Edward does sound like the one paid for our Thomas, but he wasn't imprisoned for a long time and he was back long before 1477. I had a look for the reference in the Fine and Patent Rolls, but didn't see it. I wonder if this is a combination of error and fact. Same for the Monmouth Priory defeasement; ie. Robert should read Roger, and Margaret is Sir TV's mother, but was the daughter of Prior Coch not Margaret Audley. If not that, I still think they are closely related. The Stillington links are interesting too.

Nico
On Sunday, 3 February 2019, 19:02:07 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"I can understand why Richard executed Rivers and Grey, who had clearly sought to ambush him, but Vaughan was merely obeying their orders by staying with young Edward at Stony Stratford?"

Carol responds:

That's almost certainly why he was arrested, but he may have been more than a mere tool in carrying out the plot. I think it's important that Richard didn't directly order his (or Rivers's or Grey's) execution. Instead, he had the two who weren't already there sent to York(?) to be tried together by the Earl of Northumberland and others. If he had wanted them executed untried, he could have ordered the executions without the trouble of moving them. There must have been evidence to convict Vaughan along with the others. Otherwise, surely, Northumberland would have communicated with Richard about his possible innocence. Yes, Northumberland was under Richard's orders, but those orders were clearly for a trial, not an immediate execution, and he knew Richard's reputation for justice. Details of the plot against Richard's life (beyond what he knew or guessed at Stony Stratford) may well have come to light, including Vaughn's role in the plot.

Anyway, I think we should not just loosely say that Richard executed any of the three or even that they were executed on his orders. They were tried on his orders and executed on Northumberland's after Northumberland and unnamed others found them guilty. We have only the hand-wringing of Rous and Croyland (both writing after Richard's death) to make their deaths look like judicial murder. As we have discussed in earlier posts, it is quite likely that they were guilty, with Vaughn as something more than a mere accessory.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-04 14:23:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I wonder if what happened was more a case of Vaughan, even though apparently a political opponent, was friends with Jasper Tudor who, in turn, was well-regarded by Henry VI? In fact, to a certain extent, it would be to the Yorkists advantage if they had someone so well-regarded by the king in such a position, wouldn't it? I admit that the reign of Henry VI isn't one I'm particularly well-informed on, but my understanding of a major cause of the split between Lancaster and York was over what to do about the fighting in France with the Yorkists mainly in favor of one last push to defeat the French and the Lancastrians mainly regarding the war as a lost effort. The fact that a medieval monarchy was an intensely personal affair with so much depending on the monarch and whom he chose as his advisors then only exacerbated the situation. Doug My apologies for the delay in replying! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, according to Nico's link he was back in favour with the Lancastrians by April 1460 and sometime in 1459 (I'll have to look it up again in the CFR) he along with others was given mainprise of some of Jasper Tudor's lands by Henry VI. I reckon he went with the flow.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 15:03:57
ricard1an
Then add to that the fact that Stillington had a position in Mathry in Pembrokeshire and was connected to William Horton of Tregwynt, who married Joan de Cantiloupe and their daughter (or maybe granddaughter) Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock, who was probably related to John Newton/ Craddock. The nearest village along the coast from the Canteloupe/ Horton/ Craddock castle is incidentally Newton and is a quite old village with possible connections to crusaders and templers. Richard Craddock's son Matthew fought for Rhys ap Thomas at Bosworth and eventually married Katherine Gordon, Perkin Warbeck/ Richard of Shrewsbury's wife.
Then you mentioned the Shaa family and from what I heard from my son-in law's father the Shaa's were connected to Mottram in Lancashire and I think that Francis Lovell had connections to Mottram too. As Nico said in an earlier post it was very incestuous. I think all families were supporting factions that would give them the most privileges for their families. This is what probably brought Richard down. He was giving rights to commoners and the nobility and the gentry were just not having that.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-04 15:17:56
ricard1an
Hilary Fychan means small or young apparently and Vaughan is supposedly the the English form of Fychan. I also read on line that Vaughan originally meant younger. I was under the impression, from things I had read, that Owain Tudor was descended from Ednyfed Fychan, who was Llewellyn ap Iorworth's Steward. I also assumed from things I read that Fychan was his surname and then it became angliscised to Vaughan. Owain is descended from one of his gt grandsons whose name was Tudor though I think Tudor was his grandfather and that his father's name was Meredydd. So really he should have been known as Owain ap Tudor or more appropriately ap Meredydd. So going back to Ednyfed maybe he was known as Ednyfed the younger because his father or even grandfather was Ednyfed too and they needed to distinguish between them. So possibly Fychan wasn't his surname after all and it just means small or younger.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 05:23:49
Doug Stamate
Hilary, The main part of your post sounds to me as if someone desperately didn't want to blame York, Warwick and Salisbury for what they'd done (treason) and therefore placed the blame of Salisbury's wife, Oldhall and Vaughan. Apparently the Countess and Oldhall died in their beds and we know what happened to Vaughan, so just what was the reason for this? A shot across York's bows? Whatever Vaughan was doing in London, it must have been financially rewarding if he could afford to lend such a sum. I do have a question though. You have Vaughan loaning Newton 600l, which I understood to mean pounds, but the entry then goes on to say that if Newton repays the loan in the required amounts and by the appointed dates, he only has to repay 600 marks? I checked Wikipedia and the entry there has a mark worth 13 shillings, 4 pence. IOW, prompt repayment by Newton means he only has to pay back about half of what he borrowed? Can this be correct? Also, in your last line, you refer to TB and his wife  is that correct or did you mean TV[aughan]? Doug Hilary wrote: You might find this interesting Doug/Nico '[Other persons attainted.] 21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same. Parl Rolls Nov 1459' I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well : 'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset. Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472' 600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington! There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 05:44:45
Doug Stamate
Nico, What do you think of the idea that Vaughan may have served in the same capacity as Hastings? Edward would have met Vaughan when the latter was approximately 40 and Edward was 18; roughly a 20-year difference in ages. Hastings arrived in Edward's life about the same time, but was only about 10 years older than Edward. Could it simply have been a case of Edward roistering around with his two older friends? Then, as Vaughan reached a more, um, mature age, Edward started placing him in supervisory positions. Because, since Rivers was young Edward's Governor, what was Vaughan's job at Ludlow? However, if Vaughan was assigned duties as an on-the-spot supervisor of Ludlow, that might explain him being where he was. Or possibly Edward assigned Vaughan to Ludlow as head of young Edward's security detail, which wouldn't rule out Vaughan still being in over-all charge of the day-to-day management of young Edward's establishment. Doug Nico wrote: Hi Hilary,-- You may be right about Warwick's mother and Thomas Browne. I haven't found anything that outlines exactly what he did to be executed. Does anyone know what the plot was about? An introduction from Warwick could have encouraged Edward to take Vaughan seriously and Eleanor Browne's network would also have been helpful. It never ceases to amaze me how incestuous everyone was back then, nest of vipers certainly. He must have had something to keep in favour with Edward for so long, so either he was very competent at what Edward needed him to do or he had something on him, perhaps throwing in the right amount of flattery. I can see Edward liking someone who made him feel important. How many people may have known about the precontract is subject to question, but Vaughan does connect to some people who may have known. I always regarded Vaughan as spare part in a Woodville plot, but there may have been more to it.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-05 10:23:17
Hilary Jones
I agree Mary. As we know Edward was quite clever at keeping both the nobility and the gentry at each others' throats. Richard took a more harmonious line.
I think we should have another pile of jigsaw pieces about Welsh nationalism harking right back to Glendower and before. This doesn't necessarily mean these people were anti-York. Vaughan and the Herberts fought for York, the latter at considerable cost at Edgcote. I think Jasper and HT very cleverly usurped the notion of Welsh support after Bosworth. After all, the Welsh had no cause whatsoever to love the Lancastrians kings after Shrewsbuy.
Incidentally, when I was doing a fair bit on Yorkshire wills last year it's surprising how the memory of the Hotspur rebellion polarised people there. The execution of Conyers and Scrope in particular was still a harsh memory and LCJs like Gascoigne were almost regarded as saints for their resistance to Lancastrian authority. So there is a Yorkshire/Wales link and of course Percy was married to a Herbert. H


On Monday, 4 February 2019, 15:05:04 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Then add to that the fact that Stillington had a position in Mathry in Pembrokeshire and was connected to William Horton of Tregwynt, who married Joan de Cantiloupe and their daughter (or maybe granddaughter) Jennet Horton married Richard Craddock, who was probably related to John Newton/ Craddock. The nearest village along the coast from the Canteloupe/ Horton/ Craddock castle is incidentally Newton and is a quite old village with possible connections to crusaders and templers. Richard Craddock's son Matthew fought for Rhys ap Thomas at Bosworth and eventually married Katherine Gordon, Perkin Warbeck/ Richard of Shrewsbury's wife.


Then you mentioned the Shaa family and from what I heard from my son-in law's father the Shaa's were connected to Mottram in Lancashire and I think that Francis Lovell had connections to Mottram too. As Nico said in an earlier post it was very incestuous. I think all families were supporting factions that would give them the most privileges for their families. This is what probably brought Richard down. He was giving rights to commoners and the nobility and the gentry were just not having that.
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-05 10:38:21
Hilary Jones
Hi Mary, thanks. You learn more on this Forum in a day than in 3 years at Uni!
I didn't know about the Fychan thing. I have Owen Tudor also as being descended from Maredudd (same) ap Tudor Fychan, who was son of Tudor Fychan ap Gronwy, son of Gronwy ap Tudor Hen, Lord of Penmynydd and then it goes back to the Seneschals of Gwynedd? Rather conveniently to my liking, Maredudd's mother is Margaret ferch Thomas descended from Owain ap Gruffyd, Lord of South Wales and Prince of Dehuebarth. But by the nature of Welsh genealogy there must be loads of Margarets ferch Thomas and we don't know whether these men were always eldest sons. So for HT they seem to have conjured up a more impressive pedigree than the Plantagenets, which is no doubt the idea!
I shall carry on looking. I'm interested in Alice Montagu's connections with Somerset. BTW the Barres of the Bytton inheritance which eventually went to Stillingtons's grandchildren were also related to TV of Tretower, as you probably know. Again a lot of this is about inheritances. H

On Monday, 4 February 2019, 15:21:27 GMT, maryfriend@... []
ichardiiisocietyforum@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary Fychan means small or young apparently and Vaughan is supposedly the the English form of Fychan. I also read on line that Vaughan originally meant younger. I was under the impression, from things I had read, that Owain Tudor was descended from Ednyfed Fychan, who was Llewellyn ap Iorworth's Steward. I also assumed from things I read that Fychan was his surname and then it became angliscised to Vaughan. Owain is descended from one of his gt grandsons whose name was Tudor though I think Tudor was his grandfather and that his father's name was Meredydd. So really he should have been known as Owain ap Tudor or more appropriately ap Meredydd. So going back to Ednyfed maybe he was known as Ednyfed the younger because his father or even grandfather was Ednyfed too and they needed to distinguish between them. So possibly Fychan wasn't his surname after all and it just means small or younger.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 10:44:05
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug,
Yes TB is a typo, sorry.
Re the 600 livres, it definitely says that in the NA extract which I've cut and pasted below. I also looked for marks. But it could also be a typo. Newton was a rich man who built his own chantry but it needs further investigation.
Alice, Oldhall and Vaughan are a disparate group on the face of it. Oldhall comes from Suffolk, Vaughon from London and yet they meet up with Alice up north as I read it? And why just them, there must have been a lot of folk plotting then? As you say why are the main perpetrators omitted - though they are of course attainted later?
More work! H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 05:23:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The main part of your post sounds to me as if someone desperately didn't want to blame York, Warwick and Salisbury for what they'd done (treason) and therefore placed the blame of Salisbury's wife, Oldhall and Vaughan. Apparently the Countess and Oldhall died in their beds and we know what happened to Vaughan, so just what was the reason for this? A shot across York's bows? Whatever Vaughan was doing in London, it must have been financially rewarding if he could afford to lend such a sum. I do have a question though. You have Vaughan loaning Newton 600l, which I understood to mean pounds, but the entry then goes on to say that if Newton repays the loan in the required amounts and by the appointed dates, he only has to repay 600 marks? I checked Wikipedia and the entry there has a mark worth 13 shillings, 4 pence. IOW, prompt repayment by Newton means he only has to pay back about half of what he borrowed? Can this be correct? Also, in your last line, you refer to TB and his wife  is that correct or did you mean TV[aughan]? Doug Hilary wrote: You might find this interesting Doug/Nico '[Other persons attainted.] 21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same.. Parl Rolls Nov 1459' I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well : 'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset. Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472' 600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington! There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-05 10:49:15
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Thanks for the links, Hilary. Thomas could #12 on the Stirnet family tree, an illegitimate son by an unknown mother. Since the earliest records of him are from the early 1440s, I would estimate his birthdate as close to 1420, so he would be in the age range to be Thomas of Tretower's son, possibly younger than the future Sir Thomas, his legitimate son. Even if not technically 'the younger,' it may have been assumed because he was less senior in rank due to illegitimacy. As Mary says, Vaughan/Fychan is a descriptive name meaning small/younger/junior, so alot of Welsh people are named Vaughan/Fychan, like Ednyfed (from Gwynedd), but are not related to the Tretower Vaughans. However, I still think our Thomas is from that family. At that time, to have a career as high profile as his, you would have to be connected to a prominent family, and his began and ended in the same area where Thomas Vaughan of Tretower held considerable power. Interesting to is Margaret #13, perhaps named after her mother who was the same Margaret in the Monmouth Priory defeasance and TV's full sister.
Nico

On Monday, 4 February 2019, 15:21:27 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary Fychan means small or young apparently and Vaughan is supposedly the the English form of Fychan. I also read on line that Vaughan originally meant younger. I was under the impression, from things I had read, that Owain Tudor was descended from Ednyfed Fychan, who was Llewellyn ap Iorworth's Steward. I also assumed from things I read that Fychan was his surname and then it became angliscised to Vaughan. Owain is descended from one of his gt grandsons whose name was Tudor though I think Tudor was his grandfather and that his father's name was Meredydd. So really he should have been known as Owain ap Tudor or more appropriately ap Meredydd. So going back to Ednyfed maybe he was known as Ednyfed the younger because his father or even grandfather was Ednyfed too and they needed to distinguish between them. So possibly Fychan wasn't his surname after all and it just means small or younger.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 11:13:56
Hilary Jones
I think we have found the 'Stillington link'. If you look at the IPM on Thomas Montagu, Earl of Salsibury below you'll see his lands included Wraxall, Cheddar and loads of others in Somerset, Dorset and Wiltshire, also including Chicklade which was later somehow given to EB. These were passed to his daughter Alice and of course her husband.
| Mapping the Medieval Countryside

| Mapping the Medieval Countryside


So if would seem that despite his service with Henry VI, Stillington had an affinity with the Nevilles. H

On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 10:51:35 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug,
Yes TB is a typo, sorry.
Re the 600 livres, it definitely says that in the NA extract which I've cut and pasted below. I also looked for marks. But it could also be a typo. Newton was a rich man who built his own chantry but it needs further investigation.
Alice, Oldhall and Vaughan are a disparate group on the face of it. Oldhall comes from Suffolk, Vaughon from London and yet they meet up with Alice up north as I read it? And why just them, there must have been a lot of folk plotting then? As you say why are the main perpetrators omitted - though they are of course attainted later?
More work! H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 05:23:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, The main part of your post sounds to me as if someone desperately didn't want to blame York, Warwick and Salisbury for what they'd done (treason) and therefore placed the blame of Salisbury's wife, Oldhall and Vaughan. Apparently the Countess and Oldhall died in their beds and we know what happened to Vaughan, so just what was the reason for this? A shot across York's bows? Whatever Vaughan was doing in London, it must have been financially rewarding if he could afford to lend such a sum. I do have a question though. You have Vaughan loaning Newton 600l, which I understood to mean pounds, but the entry then goes on to say that if Newton repays the loan in the required amounts and by the appointed dates, he only has to repay 600 marks? I checked Wikipedia and the entry there has a mark worth 13 shillings, 4 pence. IOW, prompt repayment by Newton means he only has to pay back about half of what he borrowed? Can this be correct? Also, in your last line, you refer to TB and his wife  is that correct or did you mean TV[aughan]? Doug Hilary wrote: You might find this interesting Doug/Nico '[Other persons attainted.] 21. And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford: to ordain and decree, by the said authority, that the same Alice, William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan be reputed, taken, deemed, adjudged and attainted of high treason for the same... Parl Rolls Nov 1459' I wrote to Mary about the connection between Oldhall and the Stillington gang in Somerset. Here's John Newton as well : 'August 6. John Neuton, knight, late of Wyke in Yatton parish co. Somerset, to Thomas Vaughan, esquire, chamberlain of prince Edward. Bond in 600l., payable at the feast of the Assumption of the B.V.M. next or levied etc. in Somerset. Condition, that if John Neuton pay 300 marks to Thomas, his executors and assigns, on 22 August, and find sureties that he shall pay 100 marks at Christmas, 100 marks at Easter and 100 marks at Pentecost, this bond shall be voided etc. 1472' 600 livres is a lot of money when 380 could buy Marylebone for Stillington! There are quite a few cases in the Common Pleas involving TB and his wife and also some actions against him for debt. Doesn't really sound Edward's normal sort.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 11:18:29
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I'm not sure when Edward first met either Hastings or Vaughan, but both could have been introduced through Warwick. Hastings was married to Warwick's sister, and Vaughan was had links to his mother. Vaughan may go back earlier as he was active in Hereford when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow. Hastings and Vaughan were older that Edward, so both may have been people who he looked up to and respected. They also knew each other well so some of their dealings with Edward may have also been mutual. Ultimately, that may have included a fear of losing their status if young Edward wasn't King.
Hastings was Edward IV's chamberlain, and Vaughan, Edward V's. Although, Vaughan is recorded on some foreign missions, it does appear that he was based at Ludlow in EV's service. He would control who had access to the Prince. Could it be possible that since Hastings and Vaughan were old allies and the Woodvilles had a long standing feud with Hastings, Anthony Woodville may have avoided Ludlow because of uneasiness with Vaughan. At Stony Stratford, Vaughan was with EV, but not with AW or Grey. While he was executed along with AW and Grey, could it have been for something to do with Hastings and not them? Iow, was there more than one conspiracy - Stony Stratford, being about the Woodvilles (although Vaughan probably knew something), and another one involving Vaughan and Hastings to preserve their power base? Alternatively, all four were involved (although Hastings may have been a late addition), and Vaughan was able to draw Hastings in with an old enemy to maintain his position.
Nico

On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 05:45:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, What do you think of the idea that Vaughan may have served in the same capacity as Hastings? Edward would have met Vaughan when the latter was approximately 40 and Edward was 18; roughly a 20-year difference in ages. Hastings arrived in Edward's life about the same time, but was only about 10 years older than Edward. Could it simply have been a case of Edward roistering around with his two older friends? Then, as Vaughan reached a more, um, mature age, Edward started placing him in supervisory positions. Because, since Rivers was young Edward's Governor, what was Vaughan's job at Ludlow? However, if Vaughan was assigned duties as an on-the-spot supervisor of Ludlow, that might explain him being where he was. Or possibly Edward assigned Vaughan to Ludlow as head of young Edward's security detail, which wouldn't rule out Vaughan still being in over-all charge of the day-to-day management of young Edward's establishment. Doug Nico wrote: Hi Hilary,-- You may be right about Warwick's mother and Thomas Browne. I haven't found anything that outlines exactly what he did to be executed. Does anyone know what the plot was about? An introduction from Warwick could have encouraged Edward to take Vaughan seriously and Eleanor Browne's network would also have been helpful. It never ceases to amaze me how incestuous everyone was back then, nest of vipers certainly. He must have had something to keep in favour with Edward for so long, so either he was very competent at what Edward needed him to do or he had something on him, perhaps throwing in the right amount of flattery. I can see Edward liking someone who made him feel important. How many people may have known about the precontract is subject to question, but Vaughan does connect to some people who may have known. I always regarded Vaughan as spare part in a Woodville plot, but there may have been more to it.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-05 13:53:16
ricard1an
Not sure if this helps Nico, I found it in google books while looking for "The Year of the Three Kings by Giles St Aubyn". When dealing with Buckingham's rebellion he says "no sooner had Buckingham started on his campaign than his neighbour, Sir Thomas Vaughan, a namesake and relation of Edward's late Chamberlain, besieged and captured Brecon". I believe that it was Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower who captured Brecon also I read elsewhere that he was very loyal to Richard.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 14:35:03
ricard1an
Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.
Not sure what St Aubyn's sources for these statements were. Maybe he was just making it up. Has anyone read the book?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 16:14:33
Hilary Jones
Sorry you'd both been 'trashed' again! No I haven't read that book but it sounds interesting.
Yes I too think there is scope to consider an arrangement between TV and Hastings. I've nothing to suggest that either of them liked the Woodvilles, both were linked with the Nevilles and both were a similar age (as Roger V lived a long life TV could have been born later than 1420). Perhaps it surprised them how deftly Richard dealt with Rivers and Grey, perhaps the sudden rise of Buckingham had shocked them? I truly don't know. Certainly if young Edward was ill then TV stood to lose his power base and quite soon. The problem is we don't know what communication went on between the prisoners (who were held separately I recall) and London. Rivers, for example, still despite all ,seemed to maintain some affection for Richard to the very end. Perhaps they were all telling a different story - and who knows if any of those stories passed through Buckingham who changed them a bit. After all, it wasn't to his advantage for any of them to survive.
And then there is when and how the Pre-contract emerged. What we do now know is that everyone who likely had a knowledge of it was in the Neville affinity, even Father Ingleby. Just throw in Anne Beauchamp as well ..... H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 14:38:33 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.


Not sure what St Aubyn's sources for these statements were. Maybe he was just making it up. Has anyone read the book?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-05 16:16:25
Hilary Jones
Oh and I forgot to say I agree about Reggie - what a mastermind and faithful servant :) :) H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 16:14:09 GMT, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

Sorry you'd both been 'trashed' again! No I haven't read that book but it sounds interesting.
Yes I too think there is scope to consider an arrangement between TV and Hastings. I've nothing to suggest that either of them liked the Woodvilles, both were linked with the Nevilles and both were a similar age (as Roger V lived a long life TV could have been born later than 1420). Perhaps it surprised them how deftly Richard dealt with Rivers and Grey, perhaps the sudden rise of Buckingham had shocked them? I truly don't know. Certainly if young Edward was ill then TV stood to lose his power base and quite soon. The problem is we don't know what communication went on between the prisoners (who were held separately I recall) and London. Rivers, for example, still despite all ,seemed to maintain some affection for Richard to the very end. Perhaps they were all telling a different story - and who knows if any of those stories passed through Buckingham who changed them a bit. After all, it wasn't to his advantage for any of them to survive.
And then there is when and how the Pre-contract emerged. What we do now know is that everyone who likely had a knowledge of it was in the Neville affinity, even Father Ingleby. Just throw in Anne Beauchamp as well ..... H
On Tuesday, 5 February 2019, 14:38:33 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.


Not sure what St Aubyn's sources for these statements were. Maybe he was just making it up. Has anyone read the book?
Mary

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-06 02:17:45
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I wish we knew if there had actually been any fires or whether the idea of diversionary fires was some thing that was revealed as part of a plot that was uncovered in July. The problem is that we don't know what actually happened. The plotters could have lit a few fires as a dry run for the main event later in the year. The fires sound like the could have been part of something bigger than simply removing the Princes from the Tower and mid August to early September would have been an auspicious time as everyone would have been away and distracted. Buckingham's dissatisfaction had most likely set in before the coronation (July 6), when it was clear that he wouldn't be as powerful as he had hoped. I can't remember exactly when he was at Brecon with Morton, but wasn't he Constable of the Tower at this point? He would have had unlimited access and as long as he held that position the Princes were effectively in his custody, so there was no need for him to abduct them and draw attention to himself. If someone was trying to remove them, I think the Woodvilles were the most likely culprits. Doug here: It's only the impression I've gathered from what little evidence has shown up, but it does look to me as if no fires were actually set  only planned. Considering what most of London was built of in those days, scattered fires set off simultaneously would have had everyone running to put them out before they could spread. I agree that the most likely originators of the plot were at least Woodville supporters, if not actually anyone with that name. At the present my money is on EW and MB working together, with EW promising her daughter to Henry as the seal on the bargain. FWIW, the Wikipedia article on the October Rebellion has its' origins in late September; far too late IMO to expect anything but a disorganized, easily dispersed rabble to form. If, as I tend to believe, the original object of the rebellion was to restore Edward, then it would have begun earlier and would have been casting around for some way to get Edward out of the Tower so he could lead the rebellion. Then there'd be the problem of getting word to Henry in Brittany in time so that he could assemble troops, supplies and ships. Frankly, the latest for the origins of the rebellion would have to have been well before late September. In England there'd be people to be sounded out and, once on board, arrangements made for a coordinated timing, however roughly, timing if only to prevent each separate group of rebels from being mopped up. The fiction presented that all of England was burning to overthrow Richard and only needed a leader to set them off is just that  fiction.
Nico continued: I think you are right. Knowingly, marrying someone bigamously in a church ceremony is profaning the sacred religious ceremony of marriage and definitely worse that keeping a concubine. However, if Pope's lifestyle is even more sinful, I can't seem him pointing a finger. Doug here: I'm also completely at sea when it comes to the rituals and rules of the medieval Roman Catholic Church, but it did seem to me that the Church might view a knowingly bigamous marriage very differently than out-of-wedlock sex.
Nico concluded:
Dyslexia is a possibility. A lot of people suffer from it, but most people at the that time when literacy was low would have been unaware of it. However, literacy would have been very important for a future King, and if he had this condition it may have caused anxiety and low self esteem. The whole idea of born to be the future King is a monumental pressure in itself and even a someone who was slightly introverted would struggle. Also, if young Edward were ill, could it be kept quiet at Ludlow? One thing that led me to discount the idea of the story of Edward with the septic teeth suggested by the skeleton in the Tower was that I had thought that if he were chronically ill, there would be records of doctors and buying expensive or unusual medicines. However, these would most probably have been paid for through the Ludlow accounts many of which don't appear to have survived. Doug here: The main reason I tend towards some sort of minor learning impediment, rather than a physical infirmity, is that, even at Ludlow, there'd be talk that couldn't be stopped. Whether it was the talk of the servants' hall or those sitting at Edward's table, Edward's health, or lack of it, would have been a certain topic of conversation. Nor are there any records to show that his parents had any fears for his health. Not just government records such as would accompany the dispatch or appointment of a well-known doctor of medicine, but the gossip that such an appointment cause in London. Nor do we have any records of Richard beginning any special training; certainly something to have been considered if his older brother was in delicate health? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-06 02:34:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I may very well be mistaken, but I understood that Richard, upon his arrival in London at the beginning of May wanted to have Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed then, but was over-ruled by the Council? Just who was involved in the plot for which Hastings was executed is, I admit, murky. There was Hastings and Morton for certain, and most likely Elizabeth Woodville in some form or other. To make a connection between Hastings' execution and those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, perhaps we need to look at what happened when Richard discovered there was some sort of plot to aimed at grabbing young Edward and his brother from the Tower. Someone had to have snitched. Or else palantirs were real and Richard had one! Why couldn't the same thing have happened with regards to the plot Hastings was involved in? The presumption has always been that it was Ratcliffe, I think, who discovered what was up and informed Richard, but what it it was someone else? Someone associated with guarding Rivers & Co.? Just and idea... As for Edward IV's attachment to Vaughan, couldn't it have simply been that Edward liked him? After all, Edward was the king and, as best I can see, never tried to raise Vaughan above any of the nobility (even if he may have helped him move up into the gentry class). IOW, while Vaughan wasn't above receiving gifts from Edward, he knew his place. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary (et al), was the ransom you were talking about the one when he, Malpas and Hattyclif were captured by pirates with the treasure? So I honestly don't understand the Robert and Margaret bit, unless it's a mis-translation or a deliberate red herring - though I can't think why. What we have I reckon is a huge jigsaw puzzle, you know the 2000 pieces kind. I'm beginning to put some pieces in separate piles. To start with there's the Stillington pile. Our 3 plotters, Alice (Montagu) Neville, William Oldhall and TV all have links with Stillington's 3 grandchildren. Oldhall is the grandfather of one of their husbands, TV takes a huge bond from their guardian and the father-in-law of another, and Alice - if visitations are to be believed - is the sister-in-law of their paternal grandmother. Cross over to Thomas of Tretower and the third granddaughter Lucy is married to John ap Morgan, who is related to the Herberts and who appears in several deeds with Thomas of Tretower. The Stillington family and its associates were in Richard's affinity at Yorkshire and, as we know, he inherited all this from the Nevilles. What's the betting that Alice spotted the talents of the young Stillington and shaped his future direction, even to his first prebendary in East Harptree? Then there's the 'London' pile. Our TV since the early 1450s was moving in the same London circles as the Brownes, Cosyns, the Beaumonts and Oliver King, to name but a few. He appears to have been quite litigious and there are a couple of cases in the NA involving a Thomas Vaughan and his wife Alice, formerly the wife of Richard Raulyns. Raulyns was a London sheriff in the 1470s. Did TV have a second wife? Then there's Tretower Thomas. He also had London connections. His second wife, Jane (Lady Ferrers) Verdun was first the wife of the merchant Thomas Ilam. Ilam had a daughter Margaret who married Sir John Shaa. He was a nephew of Sir Edmund Shaa, Mayor who supported Richard and Ralf Shaa who preached the famous sermon. Sir John's daughter, Etheldreda married John Writtle, William Ayloffe and John Gainsford! Yes I do think the two TVs were related. Finally, there are the missing pieces. How did our TV have such influence over Edward? Were he and Hastings buddies - there is some talk of him having gone into exile with Edward? What was his relationship with the Woodvilles and why were the dates of his execution and that of Hastings so close? He had after all been in custody (as had they all) for several weeks. It's a question Mathew Lewis asks. An awful lot more digging to do but I think we begin to creep there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-06 10:36:35
Hilary Jones
There is one other thing which I was thinking overnight.
Mary mentioned very correctly the hostility between Thomas Vaughan of Tretower and Buckingham. TV Tretower was a great supporter of Richard. Wouldn't it have been a marvellous coup for Buckingham if he could manage to get TV Tretower's half-brother (or other close relative) out of the way?
From the death of Edward, things for Hastings must have gone from bad to worst. The sparse version of events of the journey to London are probably almost right - except Rivers was in East Anglia, not in Ludlow. So Rivers no doubt ordered our TV to head for London with the priviso that they'd all meet up at Stony Stratford. That would leave him and Grey free to 'deal' with Richard en route. Hastings, sensing Woodville ambitions in London and their request for troops, warns Richard. All going great so far. But then we have Buckingham, that Hastings could never have guessed about.
It would have been geographically logical for Buckingham to have joined TV en route - after all he liked a nice procession. So when he met with Richard at Northampton (which we know he first did) he could 'reveal' to Richard that he knew TV was part of the plot, whether he actually was (which I doubt) or not.
Then when they all get to London (or even before).Hastings finds out they've arrested his old friend TV as well. And the normally sensible and patient Richard has attached himself to the flimsy Buckingham, whom Edward could never abide. In the next month Richard begins to listen only to Buckingham and pour honours on him. Hastings finds himself more and more isolated, and I would think afraid. Perhaps TV has sent messages to him warning him to beware of Buckingham, after all Hastings is about the last man standing stopping him gaining total domination over Richard. So Hastings in desperation allies with what must have been a pro Woodville faction, (perhaps Morton had a fireside chat) believing that the true target was not Richard but Buckingham? After all, wasn't it Buckingham who again revealed the plot?
FWIW the bit I know about TV so far doesn't point to a plotter, or a Richard hater and I still want to know where the Precontract comes into this, which it did very quickly in the next day or two. H

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019, 02:34:31 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I may very well be mistaken, but I understood that Richard, upon his arrival in London at the beginning of May wanted to have Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed then, but was over-ruled by the Council? Just who was involved in the plot for which Hastings was executed is, I admit, murky. There was Hastings and Morton for certain, and most likely Elizabeth Woodville in some form or other. To make a connection between Hastings' execution and those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, perhaps we need to look at what happened when Richard discovered there was some sort of plot to aimed at grabbing young Edward and his brother from the Tower. Someone had to have snitched. Or else palantirs were real and Richard had one! Why couldn't the same thing have happened with regards to the plot Hastings was involved in? The presumption has always been that it was Ratcliffe, I think, who discovered what was up and informed Richard, but what it it was someone else? Someone associated with guarding Rivers & Co.? Just and idea... As for Edward IV's attachment to Vaughan, couldn't it have simply been that Edward liked him? After all, Edward was the king and, as best I can see, never tried to raise Vaughan above any of the nobility (even if he may have helped him move up into the gentry class). IOW, while Vaughan wasn't above receiving gifts from Edward, he knew his place. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary (et al), was the ransom you were talking about the one when he, Malpas and Hattyclif were captured by pirates with the treasure? So I honestly don't understand the Robert and Margaret bit, unless it's a mis-translation or a deliberate red herring - though I can't think why. What we have I reckon is a huge jigsaw puzzle, you know the 2000 pieces kind. I'm beginning to put some pieces in separate piles. To start with there's the Stillington pile. Our 3 plotters, Alice (Montagu) Neville, William Oldhall and TV all have links with Stillington's 3 grandchildren. Oldhall is the grandfather of one of their husbands, TV takes a huge bond from their guardian and the father-in-law of another, and Alice - if visitations are to be believed - is the sister-in-law of their paternal grandmother. Cross over to Thomas of Tretower and the third granddaughter Lucy is married to John ap Morgan, who is related to the Herberts and who appears in several deeds with Thomas of Tretower. The Stillington family and its associates were in Richard's affinity at Yorkshire and, as we know, he inherited all this from the Nevilles. What's the betting that Alice spotted the talents of the young Stillington and shaped his future direction, even to his first prebendary in East Harptree? Then there's the 'London' pile. Our TV since the early 1450s was moving in the same London circles as the Brownes, Cosyns, the Beaumonts and Oliver King, to name but a few. He appears to have been quite litigious and there are a couple of cases in the NA involving a Thomas Vaughan and his wife Alice, formerly the wife of Richard Raulyns. Raulyns was a London sheriff in the 1470s. Did TV have a second wife? Then there's Tretower Thomas. He also had London connections. His second wife, Jane (Lady Ferrers) Verdun was first the wife of the merchant Thomas Ilam. Ilam had a daughter Margaret who married Sir John Shaa. He was a nephew of Sir Edmund Shaa, Mayor who supported Richard and Ralf Shaa who preached the famous sermon. Sir John's daughter, Etheldreda married John Writtle, William Ayloffe and John Gainsford! Yes I do think the two TVs were related. Finally, there are the missing pieces. How did our TV have such influence over Edward? Were he and Hastings buddies - there is some talk of him having gone into exile with Edward? What was his relationship with the Woodvilles and why were the dates of his execution and that of Hastings so close? He had after all been in custody (as had they all) for several weeks. It's a question Mathew Lewis asks. An awful lot more digging to do but I think we begin to creep there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: John Bonauntre of London

2019-02-06 12:27:13
Nicholas Brown
Hi Mary,
Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower did capture Brecon Castle just after Buckingham escaped to Weobley, and was one of several loyal subjects to Richard who were entrusted with guarding strategic positions in and around Wales. He also may have held a grudge against Jasper Tudor for executing his father which may have made him even more determined to hold Henry Tudor back.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-06 13:41:19
Nicholas Brown
Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and EofY and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.

Hi,
I haven't read the St. Aubyn book and I wish there were some sources, as I have always thought Bray played a bigger part in Buckingham's rebellion than he has been credited with. Not everyone would agree with me, but my suspicion is that MB was open to whoever offered the best deal to Henry and her. If the original conspiracy was EW, MB and Buckingham with Bray involved, could he have privately convinced MB and Buckingham to form their own conspiracy? Bray had been a Stafford family retainer for years, and his father was said to have been Henry VI doctor, so he and MB had a strong family link and loyalty not just to the Lancastrians, but also the Stafford family in common. There is so little information on Buckingham's early life, but it is my instinct that as a fatherless heir to the House of Stafford, Henry Stafford and MB played a substantial role in his early life. It would only have been natural for both Buckingham and MB to have had reservations about what the Woodvilles would actually offer, so Bray may have felt it in his and their interests to keep on the right side of the Woodvilles for as long as necessary, but dump them when no longer needed. From a purely personal perspective, I wouldn't have trusted them enough to throw my lot in with them if I was doing well under Richard without a plan B, and I don't believe a woman as clever as MB would either. If Bray fancied himself as a puppet master, a weak and ineffectual Buckingham would give him more opportunity to wield power from for himself behind the throne, with MB and Henry Tudor joining in. I don't think MB realistically thought of HT as King until after Buckingham's rebellion was over, but with Buckingham as King, he may have had a very central role, possibly married to one of Buckingham's daughters rather than EofY. I don't think the Woodvilles would ever have followed through on giving HT a central role. Even if they kept their word (and I wouldn't put it past them using MB, then finding excuses to let her down), HT would get EofY and a few lands and titles but would be kept away from the centre of power - a bit like Buckingham under Richard. I don't believe Buckingham would risk turning on Richard to have that happen to him again, so I think he was out for himself from the minute the conspiracy began too. Bray is also one of my prime suspects as the author of the rumour that the Princes were dead.
FWIW, here is a blog articles on Reggie Bray and his many talents:https://thehistoryjar.com/2016/03/12/sir-reginald-bray-tudor-advisor-architect-and-spymaster/
Nico
On Wednesday, 6 February 2019, 10:36:41 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

There is one other thing which I was thinking overnight.
Mary mentioned very correctly the hostility between Thomas Vaughan of Tretower and Buckingham. TV Tretower was a great supporter of Richard. Wouldn't it have been a marvellous coup for Buckingham if he could manage to get TV Tretower's half-brother (or other close relative) out of the way?
From the death of Edward, things for Hastings must have gone from bad to worst. The sparse version of events of the journey to London are probably almost right - except Rivers was in East Anglia, not in Ludlow. So Rivers no doubt ordered our TV to head for London with the priviso that they'd all meet up at Stony Stratford. That would leave him and Grey free to 'deal' with Richard en route. Hastings, sensing Woodville ambitions in London and their request for troops, warns Richard. All going great so far. But then we have Buckingham, that Hastings could never have guessed about.
It would have been geographically logical for Buckingham to have joined TV en route - after all he liked a nice procession. So when he met with Richard at Northampton (which we know he first did) he could 'reveal' to Richard that he knew TV was part of the plot, whether he actually was (which I doubt) or not.
Then when they all get to London (or even before).Hastings finds out they've arrested his old friend TV as well. And the normally sensible and patient Richard has attached himself to the flimsy Buckingham, whom Edward could never abide. In the next month Richard begins to listen only to Buckingham and pour honours on him. Hastings finds himself more and more isolated, and I would think afraid. Perhaps TV has sent messages to him warning him to beware of Buckingham, after all Hastings is about the last man standing stopping him gaining total domination over Richard. So Hastings in desperation allies with what must have been a pro Woodville faction, (perhaps Morton had a fireside chat) believing that the true target was not Richard but Buckingham? After all, wasn't it Buckingham who again revealed the plot?
FWIW the bit I know about TV so far doesn't point to a plotter, or a Richard hater and I still want to know where the Precontract comes into this, which it did very quickly in the next day or two. H

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019, 02:34:31 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I may very well be mistaken, but I understood that Richard, upon his arrival in London at the beginning of May wanted to have Rivers, Grey and Vaughan executed then, but was over-ruled by the Council? Just who was involved in the plot for which Hastings was executed is, I admit, murky. There was Hastings and Morton for certain, and most likely Elizabeth Woodville in some form or other. To make a connection between Hastings' execution and those of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan, perhaps we need to look at what happened when Richard discovered there was some sort of plot to aimed at grabbing young Edward and his brother from the Tower. Someone had to have snitched. Or else palantirs were real and Richard had one! Why couldn't the same thing have happened with regards to the plot Hastings was involved in? The presumption has always been that it was Ratcliffe, I think, who discovered what was up and informed Richard, but what it it was someone else? Someone associated with guarding Rivers & Co.? Just and idea... As for Edward IV's attachment to Vaughan, couldn't it have simply been that Edward liked him? After all, Edward was the king and, as best I can see, never tried to raise Vaughan above any of the nobility (even if he may have helped him move up into the gentry class). IOW, while Vaughan wasn't above receiving gifts from Edward, he knew his place. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary (et al), was the ransom you were talking about the one when he, Malpas and Hattyclif were captured by pirates with the treasure? So I honestly don't understand the Robert and Margaret bit, unless it's a mis-translation or a deliberate red herring - though I can't think why. What we have I reckon is a huge jigsaw puzzle, you know the 2000 pieces kind. I'm beginning to put some pieces in separate piles. To start with there's the Stillington pile. Our 3 plotters, Alice (Montagu) Neville, William Oldhall and TV all have links with Stillington's 3 grandchildren. Oldhall is the grandfather of one of their husbands, TV takes a huge bond from their guardian and the father-in-law of another, and Alice - if visitations are to be believed - is the sister-in-law of their paternal grandmother. Cross over to Thomas of Tretower and the third granddaughter Lucy is married to John ap Morgan, who is related to the Herberts and who appears in several deeds with Thomas of Tretower. The Stillington family and its associates were in Richard's affinity at Yorkshire and, as we know, he inherited all this from the Nevilles. What's the betting that Alice spotted the talents of the young Stillington and shaped his future direction, even to his first prebendary in East Harptree? Then there's the 'London' pile. Our TV since the early 1450s was moving in the same London circles as the Brownes, Cosyns, the Beaumonts and Oliver King, to name but a few. He appears to have been quite litigious and there are a couple of cases in the NA involving a Thomas Vaughan and his wife Alice, formerly the wife of Richard Raulyns. Raulyns was a London sheriff in the 1470s. Did TV have a second wife? Then there's Tretower Thomas. He also had London connections. His second wife, Jane (Lady Ferrers) Verdun was first the wife of the merchant Thomas Ilam. Ilam had a daughter Margaret who married Sir John Shaa. He was a nephew of Sir Edmund Shaa, Mayor who supported Richard and Ralf Shaa who preached the famous sermon. Sir John's daughter, Etheldreda married John Writtle, William Ayloffe and John Gainsford! Yes I do think the two TVs were related. Finally, there are the missing pieces. How did our TV have such influence over Edward? Were he and Hastings buddies - there is some talk of him having gone into exile with Edward? What was his relationship with the Woodvilles and why were the dates of his execution and that of Hastings so close? He had after all been in custody (as had they all) for several weeks. It's a question Mathew Lewis asks. An awful lot more digging to do but I think we begin to creep there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-02-06 15:13:51
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I'm not sure when Edward first met either Hastings or Vaughan, but both could have been introduced through Warwick. Hastings was married to Warwick's sister, and Vaughan was had links to his mother. Vaughan may go back earlier as he was active in Hereford when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow. Hastings and Vaughan were older that Edward, so both may have been people who he looked up to and respected. They also knew each other well so some of their dealings with Edward may have also been mutual. Ultimately, that may have included a fear of losing their status if young Edward wasn't King. Doug here: Is it possible that Vaughan's relationship with Edward started at Ludlow and continued because Vaughan was also a link between Edward and Edward's memories of Edmund? Vaughan wouldn't have been too much older than Edward and could also have served as a sort of big brother. Might Hastings, OTOH, have played the role of knowing, older man of the world? It's very difficult to try and imagine what personal relationships actually were, lacking the usual historical foundations based on letters and such. It may have boiled down to the simple fact that Edward liked Vaughan, and Hastings, and that was that! I agree with your last sentence that much of what happened during this period was based on a fear of sliding backwards down the pole of political and social life. Nico concluded: Hastings was Edward IV's chamberlain, and Vaughan, Edward V's. Although, Vaughan is recorded on some foreign missions, it does appear that he was based at Ludlow in EV's service. He would control who had access to the Prince. Could it be possible that since Hastings and Vaughan were old allies and the Woodvilles had a long standing feud with Hastings, Anthony Woodville may have avoided Ludlow because of uneasiness with Vaughan. At Stony Stratford, Vaughan was with EV, but not with AW or Grey. While he was executed along with AW and Grey, could it have been for something to do with Hastings and not them? Iow, was there more than one conspiracy - Stony Stratford, being about the Woodvilles (although Vaughan probably knew something), and another one involving Vaughan and Hastings to preserve their power base? Alternatively, all four were involved (although Hastings may have been a late addition), and Vaughan was able to draw Hastings in with an old enemy to maintain his position. Doug here: In another post Hilary mentioned how Edward IV would play the nobility off against the gentry and I wonder if Vaughan's appointment wasn't, to some extent anyway, something along those lines? Edward obviously trusted Vaughan or he wouldn't have appointed him to a position that basically oversaw just who young Edward did, and did not, see. Rivers, OTOH, was given the position of providing a curriculum for young Edward and his job, or so I'd imagine, would have been limited to ensure that the curriculum was followed, with Edward being the final arbiter if there were any problems. It certainly appears to me that there were three conspiracies, with the second following on because of the failure of the first and the third because of the failures of the first two. The first conspiracy was to circumvent Richard having any power as Protector by having young Edward crowned ASAP and reshaping the Council, with Woodville advice of course. That plot had to been adjusted when Rivers received notice that Richard was going to meet up with his nephew at Northampton. So, rather than just hurry to London and crown Edward, now the problem presented by Richard would have to be solved before London and the plan to abduct or kill Richard while he was en route Stony Stratford was devised. When that plot failed and then the Pre-Contract allowed Richard to become king, yet another plot had to be devised. Thus was born the October Rebellion. Now, as best I can tell, in the first plot, there's no reason Vaughan shouldn't have known about the necessity of getting young Edward to London as quickly as possible. Whether he also knew about the later plans for Richard and Buckingham, I can't say, but Richard apparently believed him to be complicit; thus Vaughan's arrest. When I first joined this forum, I often wondered if Hastings didn't get involved in the June plot against Richard mostly out of a regard for his late friend, Edward IV. While I now don't believe any such feelings played a major part in regards to Hastings' actions, I wonder if that wasn't how Vaughan may have gotten involved in the June plot? IOW, even though under house arrest and not directly involved in what was planned, he had knowledge of, or at the very least was known to have been in communications with some of those who were? Add that to any suspicions Richard may have had about Vaughan's involvement at Stony Stratford and there's your reason for his execution along with Rivers and Grey. I think... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-06 17:15:21
ricard1an
Your post about not knowing when Edward met Hastings rang a bell. I remembered reading ( online but don't ask me where and I can't find it again) that Hastings was a retainer of Richard Duke of York and that he had granted Hastings a position in Wyre Forest Bewdley maybe Chief Forester but I can't remember exactly. I was interested because I used to live in Bewdley and knew that it was part of the Yorks' Mortimer inheritance. Richard had close connections with Bewdley because the Bewdley bowmen fought for him at Tewkesbury and he helped to petition Edward to grant Bewdley a charter in 1472.
I googled Hastings and the D of Y and came up with this in the Luminarium Encyclopedia Project" Hastings was a retainer of the Duke of York and he received an annuity from him on condition that he should serve him before all others and at all times, his allegiance to the king excepted. He was highly recommended by the Duke to his son" They don't give any sources though.
Mary

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

2019-02-07 11:45:31
Nicholas Brown
Is it possible that Vaughan's relationship with Edward started at Ludlow and continued because Vaughan was also a link between Edward and Edward's memories of Edmund? Vaughan wouldn't have been too much older than Edward and could also have served as a sort of big brother. Might Hastings, OTOH, have played the role of knowing, older man of the world? It's very difficult to try and imagine what personal relationships actually were, lacking the usual historical foundations based on letters and such. It may have boiled down to the simple fact that Edward liked Vaughan, and Hastings, and that was that! I agree with your last sentence that much of what happened during this period was based on a fear of sliding backwards down the pole of political and social life.
I agree with you that Edward must have liked Vaughan and Hastings, and they may have played a mentoring role. Mary's posts were very helpful and reinforce the idea that they were introduced to Edward while he was still quite young. Hastings was based at Bewdley which is near Ludlow and may have been involved with Edward and Edmund in their youth as he was highly thought of by Richard of York. Vaughan appears to have been part of a powerful local family and he had personal connections to Warwick. They wouldn't have worked with Edward in such a trusted capacity if they didn't do what he asked them to do extremely well. It is possible that they were a link to times with Edmund. Edward doesn't strike me as the sentimental type, but you never know. As you say, it was also in their favour that they kept the balance of power well, managing to be close to Edward while knowing their place, unlike Warwick.
It certainly appears to me that there were three conspiracies, with the second following on because of the failure of the first and the third because of the failures of the first two. IOW, even though under house arrest and not directly involved in what was planned, he had knowledge of, or at the very least was known to have been in communications with some of those who were? Add that to any suspicions Richard may have had about Vaughan's involvement at Stony Stratford and there's your reason for his execution along with Rivers and Grey. (sorry for the snip.)

I think putting the conspiracies into 3 categories is a good way of looking at them, or should it be 4? They are related, but may have had different participants and even conflicting motivations. To sum up:1. Keeping Richard out, crowning Edward V and reshaping the council in the Woodvilles favour: Mostly the Woodvilles, but Vaughan most likely knew, because of his responsibility for organizing things around young Edward as his chamberlain. Could he have let Hastings know, or let something slip? Also, did Buckingham know of their intentions via his wife?2. Ambushing Richard on the way to Stony Stratford: Vaughan may have known or at least had an idea, but it could have just have been Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey.3. The Hastings Incident: Hastings was desperate to hold onto power, and if he succeeded he could restore Vaughan. I don't think he particularly cared about the Woodvilles, but may have realized he had to put up with them. Dorset may have had an active role in this one, and possibly other council members such as Morton at least knew.
4. The October rebellion: EW, the remaining Woodvilles + Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort, Morton and Bray = a real mess; probably due to lack of interest and organization and imho Buckingham and MB being primarily in it for themselves (see yesterday's post on Bray). As you mention in your other post, this rebellion must have started much earlier than September, as it would have needed so much organization. I wish we knew more about what actually went on, especially to do with the Tower, I would think that conspiring was under way not long after the coronation, and Richard being away from London in July would have been helpful. I'm not sure of the source, but I get the impression that MB and EW began plotting in the summer of 1483.
Nico

On Wednesday, 6 February 2019, 15:15:30 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I'm not sure when Edward first met either Hastings or Vaughan, but both could have been introduced through Warwick. Hastings was married to Warwick's sister, and Vaughan was had links to his mother. Vaughan may go back earlier as he was active in Hereford when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow. Hastings and Vaughan were older that Edward, so both may have been people who he looked up to and respected. They also knew each other well so some of their dealings with Edward may have also been mutual. Ultimately, that may have included a fear of losing their status if young Edward wasn't King. Doug here: Is it possible that Vaughan's relationship with Edward started at Ludlow and continued because Vaughan was also a link between Edward and Edward's memories of Edmund? Vaughan wouldn't have been too much older than Edward and could also have served as a sort of big brother. Might Hastings, OTOH, have played the role of knowing, older man of the world? It's very difficult to try and imagine what personal relationships actually were, lacking the usual historical foundations based on letters and such. It may have boiled down to the simple fact that Edward liked Vaughan, and Hastings, and that was that! I agree with your last sentence that much of what happened during this period was based on a fear of sliding backwards down the pole of political and social life. Nico concluded: Hastings was Edward IV's chamberlain, and Vaughan, Edward V's.. Although, Vaughan is recorded on some foreign missions, it does appear that he was based at Ludlow in EV's service. He would control who had access to the Prince. Could it be possible that since Hastings and Vaughan were old allies and the Woodvilles had a long standing feud with Hastings, Anthony Woodville may have avoided Ludlow because of uneasiness with Vaughan. At Stony Stratford, Vaughan was with EV, but not with AW or Grey. While he was executed along with AW and Grey, could it have been for something to do with Hastings and not them? Iow, was there more than one conspiracy - Stony Stratford, being about the Woodvilles (although Vaughan probably knew something), and another one involving Vaughan and Hastings to preserve their power base? Alternatively, all four were involved (although Hastings may have been a late addition), and Vaughan was able to draw Hastings in with an old enemy to maintain his position. Doug here: In another post Hilary mentioned how Edward IV would play the nobility off against the gentry and I wonder if Vaughan's appointment wasn't, to some extent anyway, something along those lines? Edward obviously trusted Vaughan or he wouldn't have appointed him to a position that basically oversaw just who young Edward did, and did not, see. Rivers, OTOH, was given the position of providing a curriculum for young Edward and his job, or so I'd imagine, would have been limited to ensure that the curriculum was followed, with Edward being the final arbiter if there were any problems. It certainly appears to me that there were three conspiracies, with the second following on because of the failure of the first and the third because of the failures of the first two. The first conspiracy was to circumvent Richard having any power as Protector by having young Edward crowned ASAP and reshaping the Council, with Woodville advice of course. That plot had to been adjusted when Rivers received notice that Richard was going to meet up with his nephew at Northampton. So, rather than just hurry to London and crown Edward, now the problem presented by Richard would have to be solved before London and the plan to abduct or kill Richard while he was en route Stony Stratford was devised. When that plot failed and then the Pre-Contract allowed Richard to become king, yet another plot had to be devised. Thus was born the October Rebellion. Now, as best I can tell, in the first plot, there's no reason Vaughan shouldn't have known about the necessity of getting young Edward to London as quickly as possible. Whether he also knew about the later plans for Richard and Buckingham, I can't say, but Richard apparently believed him to be complicit; thus Vaughan's arrest. When I first joined this forum, I often wondered if Hastings didn't get involved in the June plot against Richard mostly out of a regard for his late friend, Edward IV. While I now don't believe any such feelings played a major part in regards to Hastings' actions, I wonder if that wasn't how Vaughan may have gotten involved in the June plot? IOW, even though under house arrest and not directly involved in what was planned, he had knowledge of, or at the very least was known to have been in communications with some of those who were? Add that to any suspicions Richard may have had about Vaughan's involvement at Stony Stratford and there's your reason for his execution along with Rivers and Grey. I think... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: John Bonauntre of

2019-02-07 18:19:56
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas have been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.
"Not sure what St Aubyn's sources for these statements were. Maybe he was just making it up. Has anyone read the book?"
Carol responds:

I read the book (which is rather dated, 1983) some time ago but dismissed it because of the traditional approach. Unfortunately, his source for the paragraph you're referring to is Vergil.

Carol

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

2019-02-08 00:29:42
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I agree with you that Edward must have liked Vaughan and Hastings, and they may have played a mentoring role. Mary's posts were very helpful and reinforce the idea that they were introduced to Edward while he was still quite young. Hastings was based at Bewdley which is near Ludlow and may have been involved with Edward and Edmund in their youth as he was highly thought of by Richard of York. Vaughan appears to have been part of a powerful local family and he had personal connections to Warwick. They wouldn't have worked with Edward in such a trusted capacity if they didn't do what he asked them to do extremely well. It is possible that they were a link to times with Edmund. Edward doesn't strike me as the sentimental type, but you never know. As you say, it was also in their favour that they kept the balance of power well, managing to be close to Edward while knowing their place, unlike Warwick. Doug here: If Hilary's surmise about the date of Vaughan's birth (approx. 1441) is correct, regardless of whether or not Vaughan was an illegitimate offspring of a fairly important local family, then there's also the possibility that Vaughan and Edward became acquainted because the former was appointed to Edward's Earl of March household, isn't there? Such a household wouldn't be that large, but there'd be someone to take care of Edward's clothes, etc. and someone else to handle the care of his horses, as well. Or so I'd imagine. Perhaps Hastings and Vaughan began their relationships with Edward via serving in those positions at Ludlow?
Nico concluded: I think putting the conspiracies into 3 categories is a good way of looking at them, or should it be 4? They are related, but may have had different participants and even conflicting motivations. To sum up: 1. Keeping Richard out, crowning Edward V and reshaping the council in the Woodvilles favour: Mostly the Woodvilles, but Vaughan most likely knew, because of his responsibility for organizing things around young Edward as his chamberlain. Could he have let Hastings know, or let something slip? Also, did Buckingham know of their intentions via his wife? 2. Ambushing Richard on the way to Stony Stratford: Vaughan may have known or at least had an idea, but it could have just have been Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. 3. The Hastings Incident: Hastings was desperate to hold onto power, and if he succeeded he could restore Vaughan. I don't think he particularly cared about the Woodvilles, but may have realized he had to put up with them. Dorset may have had an active role in this one, and possibly other council members such as Morton at least knew.
4. The October rebellion: EW, the remaining Woodvilles + Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort, Morton and Bray = a real mess; probably due to lack of interest and organization and imho Buckingham and MB being primarily in it for themselves (see yesterday's post on Bray). As you mention in your other post, this rebellion must have started much earlier than September, as it would have needed so much organization. I wish we knew more about what actually went on, especially to do with the Tower, I would think that conspiring was under way not long after the coronation, and Richard being away from London in July would have been helpful. I'm not sure of the source, but I get the impression that MB and EW began plotting in the summer of 1483. Doug here: In regards to your #1, someone seems to have informed the Council, which included Hastings I believe, that Rivers was assembling a substantial force; otherwise why did the Council ask that the number of men accompanying young Edward be limited? The question is, of course, who? It may simply have been a matter of Hastings, or some other, non-Woodville Council member, having people stationed at Northampton/Stony Stratford with instructions to report what was going on. If that was the case, then it wasn't a case of the information leaking out, but rather being spread after it was received in London. #2 may have always been part of the plot, depending on when Rivers was informed that Richard was going to join up with his nephew's group at Northampton. If the idea was to get young Edward to London, have him crowned and reshape the make-up of the Council before the intended Protector arrived, then something had to be done with Richard at Northampton/Stony Stratford, either hold him prisoner or kill him. And, regardless of whether Richard was, or wasn't, yet Protector, he most definitely Constable of England and such plots against the Constable were also most definitely treason and punishable by death. So, if he had any knowledge of whatever was intended, then Vaughan's failure to inform Richard was, I believe, misprision of treason, and also punishable by death. FWIW, I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference. Seemingly MB wasn't involved in the June plot, and Hastings was dead by the time of the October Rebellion, but otherwise, the people involved were the same: Woodvilles, Morton and Hastings in June and Woodvilles, Morton and MB (and her affinity) in October Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-02-08 00:38:56
Doug Stamate
Mary, I'm not certain, but I think the events you describe occurred during the run-up to the October Rebellion (although the contacts may have been initiated earlier)? Of course, we're dealing with a period of six months or less, so it's difficult to determine when one round of plotting started and ended, and another round of plotting commenced! Doug Mary wrote: Has anyone considered that the delightful Reggie Bray might have had a part to play in all this. Again in Giles St Aubyns "The Year of the Three Kings" " For several weeks secret negotiations were conducted between the Queen Dowager, Lady Margaret, her son and Buckingham. Lady Margaret appointed Reginald Bray as chief dealer in this conspiracy and instructed him to draw into her party such noble and worshipful men as would help the cause. Meanwhile Lady Margaret negotiated with the Queen in Sanctuary through the Welsh physician Dr Lewis. The Queen willingly consented to the projected marriage between HT and Eof Y and promised to procure all her husband's friends to aid the Earl". We know that Reggie played a part in MB's plot, he raised funds for HT and won several key people over to MB's side. Richard apparently pardoned him in 1483 possibly because of his part in Buckingham's rebellion. He certainly did well under HT. Could Thomas hav e been persuaded that it was a good idea to have Edward crowned quickly because it would be better for him to have him and his Woodville family as advisers instead of Richard? I certainly think that Nico's theory about Vaughan and Hastings is a distinct possibility too.
--
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

2019-02-08 10:47:33
Hilary Jones
I think he was born about 1420, Doug, because like Stillington he took his first offices in the 1440s. That would make him a good 18 years' older than Edward, closer perhaps to ROY (who was born in 1411)and Salisbury.
As regards the spring/summer of 1483 there are really two people who act in an unanticipated way - Buckingham and Morton. If Buckingham had not appeared when he did then the chances are that Richard would still have arrested Rivers and Grey, proceeded to London and got on with the job the Council were waiting for him to do. Up to this point (and indeed onwards) the Council had acted in a wise and decent way; they had resisted the Woodville request for arms and had confirmed their support for Richard. Yes the Woodvilles were always going to be disgruntled but I would argue that it was the favouritism shown to Buckingham and Buck's arrogant reaction that really put the cat among the pigeons. Most of the non-clerics on the Council had been lifelong supporters of the HOY, they had fought battles, gone into exile, risked attainder. Buckingham had no record of anything. So one would have to blame Richard for his naivety in not spotting this.
My choice of Morton might seem strange but we have the gift of hindsight; we know what came next. In June 1483 HT was not on the list of prospective kings. Shakespeare and Victorian fibs might have us think he was anointed Lancastrian heir, but the only one had died at Tewkesbury. So why is Morton supporting MB when at this stage she just wants to get her son home unscathed? There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY. Edward had treated him very well indeed and there was no favourite successor to Bourchier - he had to die first anyway. Why would young Edward or Richard treat him any worse? I don't know the answer but I did have one thought.
Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
I do agree with your analysis of the various events - I think they do indeed split nicely into the four listed. H
On Friday, 8 February 2019, 00:29:48 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I agree with you that Edward must have liked Vaughan and Hastings, and they may have played a mentoring role. Mary's posts were very helpful and reinforce the idea that they were introduced to Edward while he was still quite young. Hastings was based at Bewdley which is near Ludlow and may have been involved with Edward and Edmund in their youth as he was highly thought of by Richard of York. Vaughan appears to have been part of a powerful local family and he had personal connections to Warwick. They wouldn't have worked with Edward in such a trusted capacity if they didn't do what he asked them to do extremely well. It is possible that they were a link to times with Edmund. Edward doesn't strike me as the sentimental type, but you never know. As you say, it was also in their favour that they kept the balance of power well, managing to be close to Edward while knowing their place, unlike Warwick. Doug here: If Hilary's surmise about the date of Vaughan's birth (approx. 1441) is correct, regardless of whether or not Vaughan was an illegitimate offspring of a fairly important local family, then there's also the possibility that Vaughan and Edward became acquainted because the former was appointed to Edward's Earl of March household, isn't there? Such a household wouldn't be that large, but there'd be someone to take care of Edward's clothes, etc. and someone else to handle the care of his horses, as well. Or so I'd imagine. Perhaps Hastings and Vaughan began their relationships with Edward via serving in those positions at Ludlow?
Nico concluded: I think putting the conspiracies into 3 categories is a good way of looking at them, or should it be 4? They are related, but may have had different participants and even conflicting motivations. To sum up: 1. Keeping Richard out, crowning Edward V and reshaping the council in the Woodvilles favour: Mostly the Woodvilles, but Vaughan most likely knew, because of his responsibility for organizing things around young Edward as his chamberlain.. Could he have let Hastings know, or let something slip? Also, did Buckingham know of their intentions via his wife? 2. Ambushing Richard on the way to Stony Stratford: Vaughan may have known or at least had an idea, but it could have just have been Anthony Woodville and Richard Grey. 3. The Hastings Incident: Hastings was desperate to hold onto power, and if he succeeded he could restore Vaughan. I don't think he particularly cared about the Woodvilles, but may have realized he had to put up with them. Dorset may have had an active role in this one, and possibly other council members such as Morton at least knew.
4. The October rebellion: EW, the remaining Woodvilles + Buckingham, Margaret Beaufort, Morton and Bray = a real mess; probably due to lack of interest and organization and imho Buckingham and MB being primarily in it for themselves (see yesterday's post on Bray). As you mention in your other post, this rebellion must have started much earlier than September, as it would have needed so much organization. I wish we knew more about what actually went on, especially to do with the Tower, I would think that conspiring was under way not long after the coronation, and Richard being away from London in July would have been helpful. I'm not sure of the source, but I get the impression that MB and EW began plotting in the summer of 1483. Doug here: In regards to your #1, someone seems to have informed the Council, which included Hastings I believe, that Rivers was assembling a substantial force; otherwise why did the Council ask that the number of men accompanying young Edward be limited? The question is, of course, who? It may simply have been a matter of Hastings, or some other, non-Woodville Council member, having people stationed at Northampton/Stony Stratford with instructions to report what was going on. If that was the case, then it wasn't a case of the information leaking out, but rather being spread after it was received in London. #2 may have always been part of the plot, depending on when Rivers was informed that Richard was going to join up with his nephew's group at Northampton. If the idea was to get young Edward to London, have him crowned and reshape the make-up of the Council before the intended Protector arrived, then something had to be done with Richard at Northampton/Stony Stratford, either hold him prisoner or kill him. And, regardless of whether Richard was, or wasn't, yet Protector, he most definitely Constable of England and such plots against the Constable were also most definitely treason and punishable by death. So, if he had any knowledge of whatever was intended, then Vaughan's failure to inform Richard was, I believe, misprision of treason, and also punishable by death. FWIW, I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference. Seemingly MB wasn't involved in the June plot, and Hastings was dead by the time of the October Rebellion, but otherwise, the people involved were the same: Woodvilles, Morton and Hastings in June and Woodvilles, Morton and MB (and her affinity) in October Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son. 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: [Richard III Societ

2019-02-08 13:25:52
ricard1an
Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.
Mary

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

2019-02-09 14:19:44
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward.html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary

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

2019-02-09 16:04:18
Hilary Jones
Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward.html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary

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

2019-02-09 16:08:07
Hilary Jones
PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward..html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary

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

2019-02-09 23:49:37
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: There is one other thing which I was thinking overnight. Mary mentioned very correctly the hostility between Thomas Vaughan of Tretower and Buckingham. TV Tretower was a great supporter of Richard. Wouldn't it have been a marvellous coup for Buckingham if he could manage to get TV Tretower's half-brother (or other close relative) out of the way? Doug here: A thought has also occurred to me regarding this plethora of Vaughans. If the Welsh fychan is transliterated, it turns into Vaughan, but if it's translated then it comes out something close to Young or Younger. I have no idea if you folks have already considered this, but is it possible that our Thomas, while a Vaughan in England, wasn't known by that surname in Wales? Because if he did have a different Welsh surname, or as close as possible in Welsh society, then how likely is it that he's related to the Sir Thomas of Tretower? My acquaintance with genealogy isn't even close enough to warrant a nod in passing, so I may be completely off here, but I thought I'd toss this in and see if there is any possible validity to it. Hilary continued: From the death of Edward, things for Hastings must have gone from bad to worst. The sparse version of events of the journey to London are probably almost right - except Rivers was in East Anglia, not in Ludlow. So Rivers no doubt ordered our TV to head for London with the priviso that they'd all meet up at Stony Stratford. That would leave him and Grey free to 'deal' with Richard en route. Hastings, sensing Woodville ambitions in London and their request for troops, warns Richard. All going great so far. But then we have Buckingham, that Hastings could never have guessed about. It would have been geographically logical for Buckingham to have joined TV en route - after all he liked a nice procession. So when he met with Richard at Northampton (which we know he first did) he could 'reveal' to Richard that he knew TV was part of the plot, whether he actually was (which I doubt) or not. Doug here: The problem as I see is that we don't know just who did inform Richard about what was planned for his journey from Northampton to Stony Stratford. We know that Richard arrived in Northampton no later than 29 April, 1483. We also know that Buckingham arrived later in the day. Now, was Rivers waiting in Northampton, or did he also ride into Northampton after Richard (and before Buckingham)? My understanding is that Rivers wasn't in Northampton, but rode in and that was when he informed Richard that young Edward would be spending the night at Stony Stratford. At this point Richard had apparently already been warned, apparently by Hastings, that the Woodvilles would be heading to London with a sizeable number of men. If I were Richard, after meeting Rivers, my first question to myself would have been Where are the men accompanying Rivers? Buckingham could tell him roughly how many men were with young Edward and Vaughan, but where were the men that Rivers would have gathered together? Now, this is sheer speculation, but I think what happened is that, during the feasting and good-fellowship of the evening of 29 April, Richard had people out searching for any evidence they could find as to the location of those men. And sometime during the night they discovered that Rivers' men were located near Grafton Regis. And Richard then put two and two together and came up with Rivers' plan. Richard, accompanied by Buckingham, were to set out for Stony Stratford. Once they were well past either of the turn-offs to Grafton Regis, Rivers' men would ride out and form up behind them. Meanwhile, the men stationed with Vaughan would also head out towards Grafton Regis from Stony Stratford. The idea, or so I think, was to capture/kill Richard and Buckingham before they reached anywhere near where young Edward was camped. The attack couldn't take place in Edward's presence and there was only a distance of five miles of so between Grafton Regis and Stony Stratford; so, or so I think, the attack was planned to have taken place just outside Regis Grafton. Which also means that the men camped at tony Stratford had to formed up, literally waiting, for Richard and Buckingham to be driven to where they were, and at that point Richard and Buckingham would die in the fighting. The reason I've gone into such lengths describing what I think happened is that, for the plan to work, the men stationed with young Edward and Vaughan at Stony Stratford were an integral part of the plot and whoever was in charge of them had to be in on it. If not Vaughan, then who? Hilary continued: Then when they all get to London (or even before).Hastings finds out they've arrested his old friend TV as well. And the normally sensible and patient Richard has attached himself to the flimsy Buckingham, whom Edward could never abide. In the next month Richard begins to listen only to Buckingham and pour honours on him. Hastings finds himself more and more isolated, and I would think afraid. Perhaps TV has sent messages to him warning him to beware of Buckingham, after all Hastings is about the last man standing stopping him gaining total domination over Richard. So Hastings in desperation allies with what must have been a pro Woodville faction, (perhaps Morton had a fireside chat) believing that the true target was not Richard but Buckingham? After all, wasn't it Buckingham who again revealed the plot? Doug here: I suppose the best counter is a question: Just what decisions did Richard make on Buckingham's advice that were so detrimental to Hastings and/or England? Because I can't come up with anything that was run past the Council and received the support of at least a solid majority of the members. It was only when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council that we find any evidence of a parting of the ways between Hastings and Richard. AFAIK, Hastngs retained all the offices he'd held when Edward IV was alive with the exception of Chamberlain to the King, so there's no quarrel there I can see. After spending several decades at/near the center of things, Hastings surely understood the way things operated and that a new king or a Protector, would have his own personal preferences when it came to associates/advisors. And, to be honest, I don't see why he would ever have expected to become Richard's confidante, anyway. Hilary concluded: FWIW the bit I know about TV so far doesn't point to a plotter, or a Richard hater and I still want to know where the Precontract comes into this, which it did very quickly in the next day or two. H Doug here: To be fair, one doesn't have to be someone such as Morton, who often seemed to live to plot, to become involved in a plot. Our Thomas may have become involved only after Rivers decided on an ambush as the means for removing the threat Richard posed to the Woodvilles' intentions. We also know, from later chroniclers, that one of the charges against Richard was that he was aiming for the throne from the moment Edward IV died. Perhaps Rivers used that idea to get Vaughan on board? BTW, do we have evidence that Vaughan ever even meet Richard? As for the Pre-Contract having anything to do with what happened at Northampton/Stony Stratford, I seriously doubt it did. However, I also wouldn't be surprised if we eventually learned that, once what was intended to occur on that road to Stony Stratford became known, any reluctance that may have existed about making the Pre-Contract public greatly lessened. I still hold the belief that there were, at most, 2-3 people who actually knew about the Pre-Contract, although there may have been quite a few more who wondered. For either group, however, the slightest mention of it would have been the equivalent of placing their necks on the chopping block. I tend to think his brother George may have have suspected something such as that had happened, but had no proof; which was why Edward didn't want to have him executed. Nor would I be surprised if something ever turns up showing that EW knew or suspected Edward had married previously; especially the latter. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-02-10 15:34:03
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I haven't read the St. Aubyn book and I wish there were some sources, as I have always thought Bray played a bigger part in Buckingham's rebellion than he has been credited with. Not everyone would agree with me, but my suspicion is that MB was open to whoever offered the best deal to Henry and her. If the original conspiracy was EW, MB and Buckingham with Bray involved, could he have privately convinced MB and Buckingham to form their own conspiracy? Bray had been a Stafford family retainer for years, and his father was said to have been Henry VI doctor, so he and MB had a strong family link and loyalty not just to the Lancastrians, but also the Stafford family in common. There is so little information on Buckingham's early life, but it is my instinct that as a fatherless heir to the House of Stafford, Henry Stafford and MB played a substantial role in his early life. It would only have been natural for both Buckingham and MB to have had reservations about what the Woodvilles would actually offer, so Bray may have felt it in his and their interests to keep on the right side of the Woodvilles for as long as necessary, but dump them when no longer needed. From a purely personal perspective, I wouldn't have trusted them enough to throw my lot in with them if I was doing well under Richard without a plan B, and I don't believe a woman as clever as MB would either. If Bray fancied himself as a puppet master, a weak and ineffectual Buckingham would give him more opportunity to wield power from for himself behind the throne, with MB and Henry Tudor joining in. I don't think MB realistically thought of HT as King until after Buckingham's rebellion was over, but with Buckingham as King, he may have had a very central role, possibly married to one of Buckingham's daughters rather than EofY. I don't think the Woodvilles would ever have followed through on giving HT a central role. Even if they kept their word (and I wouldn't put it past them using MB, then finding excuses to let her down), HT would get EofY and a few lands and titles but would be kept away from the centre of power - a bit like Buckingham under Richard. I don't believe Buckingham would risk turning on Richard to have that happen to him again, so I think he was out for himself from the minute the conspiracy began too. Bray is also one of my prime suspects as the author of the rumour that the Princes were dead. Doug here: Except for your omission of Morton, I tend to agree with you concerning the original fomenters of the October Rebellion, but I have doubts about MB having any Plan B  at least going into the rebellion. If my memory is correct, her attainder basically charged her with supplying money and information to Tudor, but doesn't have her directly instructing any of her affinity to come out in rebellion. (I got this from a post by Carol I have dated as 12 Dec., 2017). Perhaps her Plan B was to wait for the two Henries to get together before she did anything more direct? I can see HT possibly worrying about being fobbed off with EoY and kept out of things, but I sincerely doubt MB was, at that point in time anyway, worried about her son not being plunked into the center of things upon his return. I really do think her one over-riding and all-consuming passion was simply to get Henry back into England with no conditions required for his return. What was to happen afterwards could be dealt with then. Bray seems to have served as MB's link to Buckingham and his relationships with both families would definitely have been an asset. He might easily be viewed by Buckingham as someone who wanted to help the Stafford family as much as his duties to MB would allow. As for those rumors, perhaps we've been looking at them from a too Anglo-centric perspective? If my memory is correct, during Richard's reign there is no record of such rumors in England at all. There are rumors, charges actually, during Richard's reign by the French that the boys were murdered but, as I say, nothing in England  except that entry in Croyland. As we don't know exactly when that entry was made in the Croyland Chronicles, is it possible that those rumors/charges first reached the Abbey during or just after the rebellion, thus linking the two in the mind of the person writing the note? If the Chronicle was put together as surmised by, I believe, Marie, from notes gathered together over a period of time, what is there to say that a note written during and about the rebellion didn't also include an addendum noting that was when the first rumors of the French charges arrived at the Abbey? IOW, while notes concerning the events were written simultaneously, or nearly so, the events they described actually occurred several months apart? With the person who actually wrote the Chronicle entry not knowing that very important bit? Nico concluded: FWIW, here is a blog articles on Reggie Bray and his many talents: https://thehistoryjar.com/2016/03/12/sir-reginald-bray-tudor-advisor-architect-and-spymaster/  Doug here: Certainly seems to have been busy, doesn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-02-11 03:15:54
Doug Stamate
Mary, So it appears that Hastings may have already been part of the York family when Vaughan entered it, even if by only a short while. Most likely the only major difference between the two was their social status  at least when they entered service. Doug Mary wrote: Your post about not knowing when Edward met Hastings rang a bell. I remembered reading ( online but don't ask me where and I can't find it again) that Hastings was a retainer of Richard Duke of York and that he had granted Hastings a position in Wyre Forest Bewdley maybe Chief Forester but I can't remember exactly. I was interested because I used to live in Bewdley and knew that it was part of the Yorks' Mortimer inheritance. Richard had close connections with Bewdley because the Bewdley bowmen fought for him at Tewkesbury and he helped to petition Edward to grant Bewdley a charter in 1472. I googled Hastings and the D of Y and came up with this in the Luminarium Encyclopedia Project " Hastings was a retainer of the Duke of York and he received an annuity from him on condition that he should serve him before all others and at all times, his allegiance to the king excepted. He was highly recommended by the Duke to his son&q uot; They don't give any sources though.
--
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

2019-02-11 04:32:08
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I think he was born about 1420, Doug, because like Stillington he took his first offices in the 1440s. That would make him a good 18 years' older than Edward, closer perhaps to ROY (who was born in 1411)and Salisbury. Doug here: So we have Vaughan as the eldest, then Hastings and then Edward; with respective ages of approximately 39, 29 and 18 when Edward became king? I do wonder if Vaughan may not have been just as useful to Edward, in his own way, as Hastings, but because Hastings served as Edward' Chamberlain the presumption has been that Hastings was closer? After all, Edward did entrust the security and well-being of his heir to Vaughan's stewardship. Hilary continued: As regards the spring/summer of 1483 there are really two people who act in an unanticipated way - Buckingham and Morton. If Buckingham had not appeared when he did then the chances are that Richard would still have arrested Rivers and Grey, proceeded to London and got on with the job the Council were waiting for him to do. Up to this point (and indeed onwards) the Council had acted in a wise and decent way; they had resisted the Woodville request for arms and had confirmed their support for Richard. Yes the Woodvilles were always going to be disgruntled but I would argue that it was the favouritism shown to Buckingham and Buck's arrogant reaction that really put the cat among the pigeons. Most of the non-clerics on the Council had been lifelong supporters of the HOY, they had fought battles, gone into exile, risked attainder. Buckingham had no record of anything. So one would have to blame Richard for his naivety in not spotting this. Doug here: We shouldn't forget that one of the complaints against the Woodvilles was that, while being so favored by the king, they certainly didn't represent the old nobility. True, that group had been greatly reduced by the fighting, but there still were some representatives remaining, with Buckingham being the best known of them. I had to look it up, but Buckingham was only 4 years old when Edward IV became king, obviously too young for any political position or ceremonial for that matter. Stafford would have about 20 when Edward went to France; do we have any mention of Buckingham being there as well? If not, perhaps that was one reason Edward didn't make use of him? There's also the plain fact that, to a very large degree, Edward did favor his wife's relations over anyone else. My personal view is that he wanted to establish a party that was solely beholden to himself and if that meant excluding some people, so be it. Edward's brothers were exempt from that exclusion, at least until George starting acting up. Then there's the question of just where Edward would have employed Buckingham. Hastings was Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Mint and Captain of Calais. The other high offices of State were already occupied by well-known, able persons. Who was Edward to turf out in order to provide a job for his wife's daughter's husband? Even if that husband was the Duke of Buckingham and of royal descent? None of the above is meant to argue against the idea that Buckingham was out of his depth in any other than possibly a ceremonial positions and likely completely unsuited for any position advising Richard, or anyone for that matter. We know that Richard and Buckingham were often together after they first arrived in London, but I don't know of any record of Richard following Buckingham's advice against that of the Council. We do know, though, that once Richard began his post-coronation progress, they separated, with Buckingham off to Brecon, while Richard continued northwards. Was that separation voluntary on Buckingham's part or was it as the result of his finally realizing Richard expected Buckingham to actually work at the job he'd been given? Hilary continued: My choice of Morton might seem strange but we have the gift of hindsight; we know what came next. In June 1483 HT was not on the list of prospective kings. Shakespeare and Victorian fibs might have us think he was anointed Lancastrian heir, but the only one had died at Tewkesbury. So why is Morton supporting MB when at this stage she just wants to get her son home unscathed? There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY. Edward had treated him very well indeed and there was no favourite successor to Bourchier - he had to die first anyway. Why would young Edward or Richard treat him any worse? I don't know the answer but I did have one thought. Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now). I do agree with your analysis of the various events - I think they do indeed split nicely into the four listed. H Doug here: FWIW, my impression of Morton under the Yorks is one of frustration. Yes, he was employed by Edward IV but, AFAIK, not Morton wasn't involved in the making of policy or in it's actual execution. And that, I think, is what he desired most of all. If he'd been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, say, he still wouldn't have been making policy, but he would have been busy seeing that Church policy was carried out. If he was appointed, say, Lord Chancellor, he'd be in a position to not only make policy, but also in a position to oversee that policy being put into effect. Kings didn't really have foreign ministers at this time, they tended to act as their own  with input from knowledgeable sources, of course. Now, if Edward had assigned Morton to oversee England's foreign relations and, more importantly, acted on Morton's recommendations (even if not all the time), then I have the idea Morton wouldn't have looked twice at a penniless refugee in Brittany. I certainly could be mistaken, though. What do you think of the idea I posted in another response that perhaps the rumor was entered where it was in the Croyland Chronicle because of where it was in the notes that were used to compile the Chronicle entries? If something such as that did occur, then the rumors could have originated earlier than the outbreak of the rebellion. I can't find when the reference to the boys' deaths was made in the Parlement of Paris  was it 1483 or 1484? If the former, perhaps that was also some of Louis' doing? 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

2019-02-11 04:42:07
Doug Stamate
Mary, From your other post, we have Hastings as a retainer to Edward's father, so it would make sense to place him in Edward's household, likely in a supervisory position. Vaughan could have arrived shortly afterwards and been given a lesser position, perhaps in charge of Edward's horses? Either position would allow for Edward to get to know each man quite well and for them to demonstrate their loyalty. Doug Mary wrote: Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household. 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-02-12 10:55:17
Nicholas Brown

Hi Doug,
Except for your omission of Morton, I tend to agree with you concerning the original fomenters of the October Rebellion, but I have doubts about MB having any Plan B  at least going into the rebellion. If my memory is correct, her attainder basically charged her with supplying money and information to Tudor, but doesn't have her directly instructing any of her affinity to come out in rebellion. (I got this from a post by Carol I have dated as 12 Dec., 2017). Perhaps her Plan B was to wait for the two Henries to get together before she did anything more direct? I can see HT possibly worrying about being fobbed off with EoY and kept out of things, but I sincerely doubt MB was, at that point in time anyway, worried about her son not being plunked into the center of things upon his return. I really do think her one over-riding and all-consuming passion was simply to get Henry back into England with no conditions required for his return.. What was to happen afterwards could be dealt with then.
The attainder does only mention Margaret Beaufort giving Henry Tudor assistance. If it were discovered that she had any connection to Buckingham and the rebellion itself, it would have been included in the attainder and she would have most likely been given a much harsher punishment such as imprisonment in the Tower rather than house arrest under Stanley's supervision. If she was involved in the rebellion she kept it well hidden, but I don't think she did much, if anything at all, in terms of the rebellion itself. Like you, I think her primary concern at that stage was getting her son home, but when he did arrive she would follow whatever path suited him (and her) best with the intention of keeping all options open for as long as possible, rather like Stanley in the run up to Bosworth. I think it was also unlikely that she would have seen HT as King either at that point, and it makes sense that she would get past the first step, which was HT's arrival in England, before she committed to any further intervention. Some interaction between the two Henrys would certainly have been desirable, and I have often wondered how HT and Buckingham would have worked together or if they could actually have done so at all. I can see HT having no patience with the arrogant and rather flaky Buckingham, and the two of them turning on each other. Maybe that is another way of looking a situation where MB could see where things might work out better with EW, but I suspect her best deal fantasy was Buckingham as King, HT in a powerful position, with her Bray and Morton manipulating behind the scenes.
As for those rumors, perhaps we've been looking at them from a too Anglo-centric perspective? If my memory is correct, during Richard's reign there is no record of such rumors in England at all. There are rumors, charges actually, during Richard's reign by the French that the boys were murdered but, as I say, nothing in England  except that entry in Croyland. As we don't know exactly when that entry was made in the Croyland Chronicles, is it possible that those rumors/charges first reached the Abbey during or just after the rebellion, thus linking the two in the mind of the person writing the note? If the Chronicle was put together as surmised by, I believe, Marie, from notes gathered together over a period of time, what is there to say that a note written during and about the rebellion didn't also include an addendum noting that was when the first rumors of the French charges arrived at the Abbey?

As for the rumours of the Princes being dead, they were associated with France. Actually, most of the ideas about the fate of the Princes did originate from some foreign source, and piecemeal way that the Croyland chronicle was composed (including the possibility of notes from different writers) could certainly have had an impact on its accuracy.
A thought has also occurred to me regarding this plethora of Vaughans. If the Welsh fychan is transliterated, it turns into Vaughan, but if it's translated then it comes out something close to Young or Younger. I have no idea if you folks have already considered this, but is it possible that our Thomas, while a Vaughan in England, wasn't known by that surname in Wales? Because if he did have a different Welsh surname, or as close as possible in Welsh society, then how likely is it that he's related to the Sir Thomas of Tretower? My acquaintance with genealogy isn't even close enough to warrant a nod in passing, so I may be completely off here, but I thought I'd toss this in and see if there is any possible validity to it.

Many Welsh families were still using the patronymic system of naming, so Vaughan may have been also known as Thomas Ap whatever his father's name was. Although Vaughan/Fychan was a common descriptive name with numerous unrelated families, the chances that he was part of Thomas of Tretower's family are high since there are no other Vaughan families in the area where we first find our Thomas (the Welsh Marches between Abergavenny and Hereford) that would have been prestigious enough to kick start a high profile career like his. At that time, you needed a close connection to a prominent family.http://drwilliams.org/iDoc/welsh%20names/index.php
Nico
On Monday, 11 February 2019, 03:15:57 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, So it appears that Hastings may have already been part of the York family when Vaughan entered it, even if by only a short while. Most likely the only major difference between the two was their social status  at least when they entered service. Doug Mary wrote: Your post about not knowing when Edward met Hastings rang a bell. I remembered reading ( online but don't ask me where and I can't find it again) that Hastings was a retainer of Richard Duke of York and that he had granted Hastings a position in Wyre Forest Bewdley maybe Chief Forester but I can't remember exactly. I was interested because I used to live in Bewdley and knew that it was part of the Yorks' Mortimer inheritance. Richard had close connections with Bewdley because the Bewdley bowmen fought for him at Tewkesbury and he helped to petition Edward to grant Bewdley a charter in 1472. I googled Hastings and the D of Y and came up with this in the Luminarium Encyclopedia Project " Hastings was a retainer of the Duke of York and he received an annuity from him on condition that he should serve him before all others and at all times, his allegiance to the king excepted. He was highly recommended by the Duke to his son&q uot; They don't give any sources though.
--
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

2019-02-12 10:55:29
Nicholas Brown
Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward...html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary

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

2019-02-12 13:28:09
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico it's here!
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/chapter-one-monmouthshire-wales.html


The definition of the original photo is poor so it doesn't blow up very well. I did find a deed this morning of about 1442 which links him with John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. In another one (I think it's a Henry VI Parliament Roll) he is referred to as Thomas Vaughan or 'whatever name he may use'. Certainly he appears twice as 'alias Llandaff'. I got quite excited when I found Sir David Mathew of Llandaff (who was also allied to the Nevilles and Edward's standard bearer) had a brother called Robert, but no son called Thomas I can find. Still hunting. H


On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 10:55:36 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward....html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary

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

2019-02-12 21:06:41
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary, I must have overlooked that part when I read the article. It is difficult to read. I'm not great with Latin, but the writer here has translated armigeri as esquire. Google translate uses 'armour bearer.' Shouldn't it be armiger - a person entitled to use a coat of arms? If he was an armiger, then surely the college of arms must have a record of him. Is there any way of checking that online? However, I still lean toward Robert is a mistake, and it should be Roger or Robert is the son of the earlier Roger V of Bredwardine. Margaret is described as his consort? Does that necessarily mean his wife, or could it refer to a mistress? The Beauforts held Monmouth Castle and the Vaughans the land around it, so I'm still convinced he was from that family as he was associated with both. The author also found it strange that he would reach such heights with no recorded family, something that doesn't quite fit with the times. I'll keep an open mind and keep looking.
Nico

On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 13:29:53 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico it's here!
https://meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/chapter-one-monmouthshire-wales.html


The definition of the original photo is poor so it doesn't blow up very well. I did find a deed this morning of about 1442 which links him with John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. In another one (I think it's a Henry VI Parliament Roll) he is referred to as Thomas Vaughan or 'whatever name he may use'. Certainly he appears twice as 'alias Llandaff'. I got quite excited when I found Sir David Mathew of Llandaff (who was also allied to the Nevilles and Edward's standard bearer) had a brother called Robert, but no son called Thomas I can find. Still hunting. H


On Tuesday, 12 February 2019, 10:55:36 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, thanks for looking that up. It could just be that the document made a mistake with Roberti rather than Rogeri. Is there a link where I could take a look? I believe Maximilian claimed a right to the throne through the Burgundian link you mentioned.

Nico


On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:08:15 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

PS Forgot to say Adam Moleyns is interesting - he got lynched, and like Alice Neville he was from Salsibury. H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 16:04:26 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Couple of things Nico. I managed to blow up the original document about Vaughan's parentage which was included in the extract you sent us about him. It definitely says 'Roberti', not 'Rogeri' but I truly couldn't see well enough whether it was 'patri' or 'fratri' and as it's an extract it's cut bits off. Of course the original could have got it wrong.
The same article talks about him being a page in the Beaufort household (Edmund). Now that's interesting because Thomas Beaufort (Edmund's uncle) had married Beatrice of Portugal, an illegitimate daughter of John I who married Philippa, Henry IV's sister. If you follow that line, which for my sins I've been doing for the last couple of days, it leads you to the Burgundians. Could this be why Vaughan was tasked with the negotiations re Margaret's marriage? H
On Saturday, 9 February 2019, 14:19:53 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I would date Vaughan's birth to c.1420, or a year or two either side, as he received denizenship on March 30 1443 on receommendation of Lord Somerset and Adam Moleyns, and the appointment of Steward/Receiver of Abergavenny followed in 1446. He was probably at least 21 when he received his denizenship. Does anyone know exactly when Edward and Edmund were at Ludlow? By the 1450s, Vaughan was mostly based in London, but he and Hastings may have visited, especially since they had connections to the area. In the letter Mary mentioned, Edward complained about the 'odious rule' Sir Richard Crofte and his brother, but things seemed to have improved with Sir Walter Devereux, John Milewatier, John Nokes and William Smith, but no mention of Hastings or Vaughan.
https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/subpages/letterofedward.....html
Doug wrote: I tend to view the events of June and October 1483, #s 3 and 4, as two sides of the same coin. The first a political attempt to keep young Edward on the throne, the second a military one to return him to it. Because, if one looks at the likely participants, at least the ones at the top, there's really not much difference.

I agree with you on this. Since the incidents, motives and participants are connected, it may be best to view the Hastings incidents and the October rebellion as Conspiracy 3(a) and (b).
Audrey Williamson has Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort plotting together just before or shortly after Richard's coronation, but the initial contact/s may have been earlier. It's entirely possible that EW attempted to get MB on side as part of the June plot; the idea being, I suppose, that MB would get her husband to not support the idea a Pre-Contract had occurred. Regardless, as best we can tell, Stanley didn't support Hastings' efforts to kill Richard. Perhaps EW's failure was because she really didn't have anything, at that time, to offer MB? IOW, if young Edward remained on the throne, then a marriage alliance placing the the Stanleys so close to the throne might not go over that well with the remainder of the nobility. OTOH, once young Edward had been deposed, then all bets were off and EW felt an alliance with the Stanleys well worth giving EoY in marriage to Tudor if that brought out enough men to get young Edward's throne back. FWIW, I also think that EW never intended, at least prior to 1485, for her daughter to marry Tudor as a means of his uniting York and Lancaster under Tudor. It was always a tactical political move in the restoration of her son.
The MB-EW alliance was a shaky one at best. Stanley getting so close to the council would be the sort of thing that would annoy the nobility, but it is possible that EW may have made an overture so that he wouldn't support the precontract. If she did, and MB brought it to Stanley's attention he must have rejected the idea, because Richard continued to trust Stanley even after MB's involvement in the October Rebellion. That would suggest that Stanley didn't contradict the idea of the precontract when he had the opportunity. At that point, as you say EW didn't have anything to offer; HT wouldn't really have been good enough for EofY before the deposition, but after it she had been downgraded to illegitimate daughter of former King, so they were better matched. However, once EV was restored and precontract suppressed, EofY would have her status restored, so I think you are right that it was a tactical alliance with MB that she never really intended to go through with. If she got her way, she would have probably bought MB off with some other reward for HT. I can't imagine MB not being aware of this and the possibility that EW might completely let her down and find an excuse not to bring back HT. I also think that if the Woodvilles regained power, they would turn on Buckingham, who had supported Richard and played a part in AW and Grey's executions and even those associated with him. MB needed a plan B, and since Buckingham was closely related to her, that is why I am now leaning towards they idea of him actually being Plan A and and EW as plan B. She had to keep everyone sweet, but there were no obstacles to Buckingham treating her and HT extremely well and there was less of a likelihood of him letter her down. The Woodvilles were much more likely to close ranks, and thus a less favourable option.

Hilary: There wasn't much HT could promise him that Morton hadn't already got from the HOY...Morton knew King Louis well - he'd been in exile with MOA. Could Louis be using Morton to stir up trouble with a promise of some pecuniary reward, or favour with the Pope? I mean in the summer of course, because Louis was dead in August. As we've said before, it was greatly to France's advantage to keep England inwardly focused (I bet Louis would have loved the Brexit mess now).
That is a very plausible theory about Morton. The reward for him may well have been from Rome via Louis. He also appears to have run out of steam in the Buckingham conspiracy after Louis died.
Nico






On Friday, 8 February 2019, 13:25:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, it crossed my mind that Hastings and Vaughan might have been in Edward and Edmund's household in Ludlow. There is a letter that they wrote to their father complaining about the person who was in charge of their household. Maybe if Hastings and Vaughan were part of that household and the boys got on well with them and felt they could trust them that may have been the beginning of both men being in positions of trust when Edward was king. Thomas Vaughan was probably closer to E5 than Rivers because he spent more time with him because as we now know Rivers didn't spend much time in Ludlow despite being in charge of the household.


Mary