Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Ralph Shaa

2019-06-20 10:21:20
hjnatdat

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 13:09:32
Nicholas Brown


Hi,
I think it is possible that the Shaa family and other could have had some involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair. Along with Brampton, Beaumont, Cosyn and King who we know were connected, the chain includes Bishop Beauchamp, Thomas Shaa and William Worsley. The whole PW story seems very merchant orientated. Even the confession has young PW working at the market in Antwerp and when he gets ill he stays at a skinner's house, next to the 'house of the English nation,' which must be something to do with English merchants. Surely, if apprentices got ill, they would be sent home, so who is paying for PW? When PW recovers he ends up working for a craftsman who lives near Brampton. Whoever PW was, I have never believed that happened by chance.

The name of Beaumont's book was Peter Warbrick/Warbreck. There was a village and manor of Warbreck near what is now Blackpool, but I don't think we ever matched him to a specific person. Was Piers Warburton involved in the conspiracy?
Some of Cecily's servants were PW supporters, and it would be unlikely that they would be actively involved in a rebellion that she disapproved of, which leads me to conclude that she was a behind the scenes player. Going back to the recent posts about the precontract (many of which yahoo so kindly deleted from my account), Cecily does come across as a capricious character and I have long suspected that she had a very difficult relationship with Edward, but her visit to Sandwich was borderline treason and imho speaks volumes about her. Edward was her son and the King, while Warwick was a nephew and rebel. Even if she was going to see George, he had betrayed Edward by joining up with Warwick, and giving a marriage that Edward expressly forbade her public blessing comes across as not just disloyal, but calculatedly spiteful to Edward. I suspect the problem went back a long way between the two of them, and Edward was cautious about letting Cecily in on anything about his personal life, which may have led to the whole problem of the secret marriage in the first place. If Edward felt nothing but his mother's constant disapproval, he knew he could expect it with his courtship of Eleanor (who was from an enemy family), so he may have found a solution in a clandestine wedding. If he or Stillington had to discuss it with anyone later on, they would have been well aware of the danger of discussing it with anyone else, including and probably especially Cecily. For that reason, I believe that Stilllington would have had an awareness that it was Edward whose service he was in, and would therefore have been careful to ensure that the secret was kept. However, I do think it possible that George may have discovered something about Eleanor from Catesby or someone from her social network in the South West.

Nico




On Thursday, 20 June 2019, 10:21:25 BST, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 16:36:04
ricard1an
There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 17:21:26
Nicholas Brown
Hi Mary, I have read that story. I think it was in one of J-AH's books, but I can't remember all the details. Were they murdered or arrested then executed. If the latter, what were they accused of?
The marriage between Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray at such an early age has always struck me as rather strange. As you say, RoS might be useful for a foreign alliance, especially since he was heir to throne if Edward V died.
Nico
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 16:38:52 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 17:33:21
Stephen
Their execution on Monday 28 November 1468, five months after Lady Eleanor's death, was cited in the Eleanor paperback (ch.4,n.23 and ch.17,n.28 pp.302/323), referring to Alford and Poiner, sourced to a published letter from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton in The Plumpton Letters and Papers (p.40).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 21 June 2019 17:21
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 
Hi Mary, I have read that story. I think it was in one of J-AH's books, but I can't remember all the details. Were they murdered or arrested then executed. If the latter, what were they accused of?

The marriage between Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray at such an early age has always struck me as rather strange. As you say, RoS might be useful for a foreign alliance, especially since he was heir to throne if Edward V died.
Nico
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 16:38:52 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


 
There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.

Mary




Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 17:45:51
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Stephen for the reference. Nico

On Friday, 21 June 2019, 17:33:25 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Their execution on Monday 28 November 1468, five months after Lady Eleanor's death, was cited in the Eleanor paperback (ch.4,n.23 and ch.17,n.28 pp.302/323), referring to Alford and Poiner, sourced to a published letter from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton in The Plumpton Letters and Papers (p.40).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 21 June 2019 17:21
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa


Hi Mary, I have read that story. I think it was in one of J-AH's books, but I can't remember all the details. Were they murdered or arrested then executed. If the latter, what were they accused of?

The marriage between Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray at such an early age has always struck me as rather strange. As you say, RoS might be useful for a foreign alliance, especially since he was heir to throne if Edward V died.
Nico
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 16:38:52 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.

Mary



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 17:48:49
Stephen
John was always fastidious with his footnotes.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 21 June 2019 17:46
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 
Thanks Stephen for the reference. Nico

On Friday, 21 June 2019, 17:33:25 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


 
Their execution on Monday 28 November 1468, five months after Lady Eleanor's death, was cited in the Eleanor paperback (ch.4,n.23 and ch.17,n.28 pp.302/323), referring to Alford and Poiner, sourced to a published letter from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton in The Plumpton Letters and Papers (p.40).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 21 June 2019 17:21
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 
Hi Mary, I have read that story. I think it was in one of J-AH's books, but I can't remember all the details. Were they murdered or arrested then executed. If the latter, what were they accused of?

The marriage between Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray at such an early age has always struck me as rather strange. As you say, RoS might be useful for a foreign alliance, especially since he was heir to throne if Edward V died.
Nico
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 16:38:52 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

 
There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.

Mary






Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 18:21:00
ricard1an
Thank you Stephen.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-21 18:21:39
ricard1an
Yes I think it was JAH I will check it out and come back to you.
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-22 09:13:24
brian\_yorkist
Two of Elizabeth's servants were *executed* on the orders of Edward IV. This is very odd given that her husband was a notably loyal Yorkist and his followers would normally be under "protection".
Someone may like to check this, as I am working from memory, but I seem to recall that a little later she and her brother Humphrey received pardons. (I think details are in the Calendar of Close Rolls.)
It would be very unusual for a married woman - under coverture - to receive a pardon for a civil offence without being associated with her husband, who was in effect "responsible" for her as a parent is currently responsible for a child under 18. This implies - to me anyway - that the pardon was for a criminal or political offence. Any opinions to the contrary are entirely welcome.
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-22 09:36:11
Hilary Jones
Agree with all this. There were several Piers Warburtons but one was definitely a contemporary of the next person who owned the book in the middle of the sixteenth century, whose name escapes me without looking it up. H
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 13:09:37 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:



Hi,
I think it is possible that the Shaa family and other could have had some involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair. Along with Brampton, Beaumont, Cosyn and King who we know were connected, the chain includes Bishop Beauchamp, Thomas Shaa and William Worsley. The whole PW story seems very merchant orientated. Even the confession has young PW working at the market in Antwerp and when he gets ill he stays at a skinner's house, next to the 'house of the English nation,' which must be something to do with English merchants. Surely, if apprentices got ill, they would be sent home, so who is paying for PW? When PW recovers he ends up working for a craftsman who lives near Brampton. Whoever PW was, I have never believed that happened by chance.

The name of Beaumont's book was Peter Warbrick/Warbreck. There was a village and manor of Warbreck near what is now Blackpool, but I don't think we ever matched him to a specific person. Was Piers Warburton involved in the conspiracy?
Some of Cecily's servants were PW supporters, and it would be unlikely that they would be actively involved in a rebellion that she disapproved of, which leads me to conclude that she was a behind the scenes player. Going back to the recent posts about the precontract (many of which yahoo so kindly deleted from my account), Cecily does come across as a capricious character and I have long suspected that she had a very difficult relationship with Edward, but her visit to Sandwich was borderline treason and imho speaks volumes about her. Edward was her son and the King, while Warwick was a nephew and rebel. Even if she was going to see George, he had betrayed Edward by joining up with Warwick, and giving a marriage that Edward expressly forbade her public blessing comes across as not just disloyal, but calculatedly spiteful to Edward. I suspect the problem went back a long way between the two of them, and Edward was cautious about letting Cecily in on anything about his personal life, which may have led to the whole problem of the secret marriage in the first place. If Edward felt nothing but his mother's constant disapproval, he knew he could expect it with his courtship of Eleanor (who was from an enemy family), so he may have found a solution in a clandestine wedding. If he or Stillington had to discuss it with anyone later on, they would have been well aware of the danger of discussing it with anyone else, including and probably especially Cecily. For that reason, I believe that Stilllington would have had an awareness that it was Edward whose service he was in, and would therefore have been careful to ensure that the secret was kept. However, I do think it possible that George may have discovered something about Eleanor from Catesby or someone from her social network in the South West.

Nico




On Thursday, 20 June 2019, 10:21:25 BST, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-22 15:19:53
Doug Stamate
Mary, Other posters have filled this out a bit, but I did have a few thoughts. First, do we know what the two servants were charged with? Were they charged and convicted of some criminal offense? Other than treason, that is? Second, in his post Brian mentioned that he recollected both Elizabeth and her brother Humphrey received pardons shortly thereafter, but couldn't recall the offense/s the pardons were for. My question is: Did Humphrey accompany his sister to Burgundy? To be honest, I don't know just how liable an employer would have been for the actions of someone in their employ in the 15th century, but it occurred to me that the two servants who were executed might have been charged with, convicted of and executed for some crime while they were overseas accompanying Elizabeth (and Humphrey?) and the pardon/s were issued to prevent anyone from trying to hold either Elizabeth or her brother liable/responsible for whatever their servants had done. The same reasoning might also apply if whatever the servants were charged with had occurred in England, mightn't it? FWIW, I've always understood that Edward married Richard of Shrewsbury to Anne Mowbray in order to gather in her inheritance as Anne was a (the?) major heiress in England at that time. The PoW would almost certainly have a foreign bride and then there were all of Edward's daughters to be used as bargaining chips in foreign dealings... Doug Mary wrote: There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-23 10:11:37
stephenmlark
The servants were charged with treasonous correspondence with the Beauforts ie to threaten Lady Elizabeth not to talk about her sister. This worked until after Edward's death - just look at her will, particularly with reference to Cambridge.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-23 17:41:11
ricard1an
Hi Doug
As Stephen has said above they were charged with treason because they were in contact with the Duke of Somerset. JAH also says that there were two sources that suggest that they were condemned but not executed. However, he suggests that they seem confused about the date so may not be accurate, he cites H Ellis,ed,R Fabyan The New Chronicles of England and France and C I Kingsford, ed, Chronicles of London. JAH also says the her brother Sir Humphrey Talbot was with Elizabeth in Bruges.
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-23 17:56:24
Doug Stamate
Stephen, It seems to me that the question that needs to be answered is whether the servants were indeed in treasonous correspondence. In another post Mary wrote that everyone had spies, so it doesn't seem that strange to me that some of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk's servants mightn't have served in that capacity  and been caught at it. Then there's the timing of it. The Duchess accompanied Margaret of York to Flanders, leaving England on 23 June, 1483. Do we know when the Duchess returned? More importantly, who they (or their servants) could have encountered while out of England? Presuming, of course, that Alford and Poiner accompanied the Duke and Duchess. I've done some quick internet searches, but can't find any date for Elizabeth's return. It seems to me that we should also keep in mind what was happening between Edward and Warwick during this period. By 1468 Warwick had retired from Court and was planning the rebellion that led to the Battle of Edgecote Moor in July 1469, so there's the possibility that Edward was also keeping a close eye on anyone with Lancastrian connections. I guess It's a matter not so much that Alford and Poiner couldn't have been executed as some sort of warning to Lady Elizabeth, but rather that there's other possibilities for their execution that need first to be disposed of. I keep checking Barnes and Noble (bookstore) for JA-H's books, but it appears I'll have to special order em. Doug Stephen wrote: The servants were charged with treasonous correspondence with the Beauforts ie to threaten Lady Elizabeth not to talk about her sister. This worked until after Edward's death - just look at her will, particularly with reference to Cambridge.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-23 18:26:42
Stephen
No, this happened in 1468, such that they were absent when Lady Eleanor conveniently died on 30th June. The treasonous correspondence is mentioned in the references and source I have mentioned:
When Elizabeth Talbot was in Flanders in 1468, some of her servants reportedly called upon the exiled Beauforts, provoking the wrath of Edward IV (ch.4, n.23).
Chronicles of the White Rose of York (Hearne's Fragment) pp.20-1: The fact that the two men were of the Norfolk affinity is attested by a letter of 9 December 1468 from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton. This reports that one Alford and one Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, were beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. J.Kirby ed. The Plumpton Letters and Papers, Cambridge, 1996, p.40 (ch.17, n.28).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 23 June 2019 17:56
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 
 
 
Stephen,
It seems to me that the question that needs to be answered is whether the servants were indeed in treasonous correspondence. In another post Mary wrote that everyone had spies, so it doesn't seem that strange to me that some of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk's servants mightn't have served in that capacity  and been caught at it.
Then there's the timing of it. The Duchess accompanied Margaret of York to Flanders, leaving England on 23 June, 1483. Do we know when the Duchess returned? More importantly, who they (or their servants) could have encountered while out of England? Presuming, of course, that Alford and Poiner accompanied the Duke and Duchess. I've done some quick internet searches, but can't find any date for Elizabeth's return. It seems to me that we should also keep in mind what was happening between Edward and Warwick during this period. By 1468 Warwick had retired from Court and was planning the rebellion that led to the Battle of Edgecote Moor in July 1469, so there's the possibility that Edward was also keeping a close eye on anyone with Lancastrian connections.
I guess It's a matter not so much that Alford and Poiner couldn't have been executed as some sort of warning to Lady Elizabeth, but rather that there's other possibilities for their execution that need first to be disposed of.
I keep checking Barnes and Noble (bookstore) for JA-H's books, but it appears I'll have to special order em.
Doug
 
Stephen wrote:
The servants were charged with treasonous correspondence with the Beauforts ie to threaten Lady Elizabeth not to talk about her sister. 
This worked until after Edward's death - just look at her will, particularly with reference to Cambridge.
 
 
 

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




Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-24 12:43:48
Hilary Jones
Here we are:
Plumpton correspondence. A series of letters, chiefly domestick, written in the reigns of Edward IV. Richard III. Henry VII. and Henry VIII : Plumpton, Edward, Sir, 1581-1654? : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Plumpton correspondence. A series of letters, chiefly domestick, written...

27



It's actually said to be John Poyntz. Now there were two John Poyntzs around at the time - one Esquire from Iron Acton South Glos and the other Sir John Poyntz of South Ockendon, Essex. Both died around this time but both could not be described as young, nor were they attainted. This could have been a younger son of the former, since he was writing to Beaufort, Duke of Somerset. Alsford I haven't found so far.
Taking it in context it does seem more to do with the plotting going on involving, amongst others, Oxford. However, if as in one version the name is Poiner (i.e. Poyner) and not Poyntz, then it's more interesting. The Poyners were from Shropshire and allied to the Corbets and the Talbots. Which could have brought in Humphrey as well. H
On Sunday, 23 June 2019, 18:26:47 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

No, this happened in 1468, such that they were absent when Lady Eleanor conveniently died on 30th June. The treasonous correspondence is mentioned in the references and source I have mentioned:
When Elizabeth Talbot was in Flanders in 1468, some of her servants reportedly called upon the exiled Beauforts, provoking the wrath of Edward IV (ch.4, n.23).
Chronicles of the White Rose of York (Hearne's Fragment) pp.20-1: The fact that the two men were of the Norfolk affinity is attested by a letter of 9 December 1468 from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton.. This reports that one Alford and one Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, were beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. J.Kirby ed. The Plumpton Letters and Papers, Cambridge, 1996, p.40 (ch.17, n.28).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 23 June 2019 17:56
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa




Stephen,
It seems to me that the question that needs to be answered is whether the servants were indeed in treasonous correspondence. In another post Mary wrote that everyone had spies, so it doesn't seem that strange to me that some of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk's servants mightn't have served in that capacity  and been caught at it.
Then there's the timing of it. The Duchess accompanied Margaret of York to Flanders, leaving England on 23 June, 1483. Do we know when the Duchess returned? More importantly, who they (or their servants) could have encountered while out of England? Presuming, of course, that Alford and Poiner accompanied the Duke and Duchess. I've done some quick internet searches, but can't find any date for Elizabeth's return. It seems to me that we should also keep in mind what was happening between Edward and Warwick during this period. By 1468 Warwick had retired from Court and was planning the rebellion that led to the Battle of Edgecote Moor in July 1469, so there's the possibility that Edward was also keeping a close eye on anyone with Lancastrian connections.
I guess It's a matter not so much that Alford and Poiner couldn't have been executed as some sort of warning to Lady Elizabeth, but rather that there's other possibilities for their execution that need first to be disposed of.
I keep checking Barnes and Noble (bookstore) for JA-H's books, but it appears I'll have to special order em.
Doug

Stephen wrote:
The servants were charged with treasonous correspondence with the Beauforts ie to threaten Lady Elizabeth not to talk about her sister.
This worked until after Edward's death - just look at her will, particularly with reference to Cambridge.




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



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-24 14:53:39
mariewalsh2003

Hi all,


Just back from holiday. I skimmed through the posts I missed early this morning when I couldn't sleep and made a few notes. Too much for one post, so I'll try to post them by separately subject, if they'll divide up nicely. Here is the first.


As it happens, I've been looking at the events of 1469 lately, so although they are somewhat confused, I am a lot clearer about the goings-on than I was.

The story of Edward's own bastardy may well have come from the French, as has already been suggested on the forum, and it may well be that Warwick refrained from using it (at least in 1469) although it clearly had a long-term affect on Clarence, who was repeating it before his final arrest.


The evidence strongly suggests that Warwick's plan in 1469 was simply to destroy his rivals at court and get the Woodville marriage set aside. The petition that the northern rebels used did not attack Edward IV himself, but did the usual thing of blaming all the ills of his government on his advisors, amongst whom it specifically named "the Lord Rivers, the Duchess of Bedford his wife, and their sons, Sir William Herbert the Earl of Pembroke, Humphrey Stafford the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Audley, Sir John Fogge".

Those of the above men who were caught were executed, either by the northern army or on Warwick's personal order; the Duchess of Bedford was tried for witchcraft. After capturing Edward, Warwick and Clarence simply took him to Warwick Castle and made him continue issuing warrants and decrees as though he were merely a guest and still in control. The Duchess of Bedford's witchcraft trial indicates that Warwick was seeking to annul the Woodville marriage rather than depose Edward (this is what Hicks probably means when he says there was talk at that time of Edward's issue being bastards).

However, just one week after Edward's capture the Milanese ambassador at Louis' court was told that the Earl of Warwick had "made a certain invention, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and rule does not legitimately belong to him but directly and duly belongs to the foregoing duke of Clarence." But there is no evidence that Warwick was tryng to put Clarence forward. Rather, when the country became ungovernable with Edward clearly a prisoner at Middleham, he simply let him travel to York with his brother the Archbishop as his minder, in order that he could be seen to be personally in charge of putting down the new rebellion and condemning its leader. (it was George Neville's failure to control Edward there that led to his complete release.)

So I think in 1469 Louis may have been pushing Warwick to depose Edward, but Warwick was not yet ready.

So, when Cecily visited Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich on 20 June, she probably hadn't heard anything to suggest the pair might be impugning her honour.

Why she visited them there is another question. She may have gone to try to persuade Clarence to change his mind about marrying Isabel Neville, but if so she didn't try very hard as she only dropped in for a day. Also, Edward IV seems to have been taken by surprise by the marriage, so, if his mother knew what was going on, did she not tell him? It is perhaps rather more plausible, IMO, that she disagreed with Edward on this matter and went to Sandwich to give Clarence her blessing. Almost certainly she would have had no knowledge of all that was to come afterwards, although she may have disapproved of the Woodville marriage and may - just possibly - have been happy to see it forcibly dissolved.









Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-24 16:00:23
Doug Stamate
Stephen,
First off, my apologies for mistyping the year of Margaret's departure for
Flanders; it should have read "1468," not 1483!
Am I correct in presuming that during the period we're interested in
"correspondence" could mean simply meeting someone and ANY meeting with the
Beauforts could, because of their Attainders, result in charges of treason?
Then there's the idea that executing "gentlemen to my Lord of Norfolk" is
somehow a "shot across the bow" to "my Lady of Norfolk." Perhaps I'm
mistaken, but a lady of such rank would have her own household including
male servants, wouldn't she? Why not execute someone from her household?
Especially if, as it seems it's the idea, the charges weren't true? OTOH, if
the charges were true, then, depending on exactly what occurred during that
"correspondence" between Alford, Poiner and the Beauforts, being executed
for treason may have been the proper outcome.
Again, I fall back on what happened during 1469/70. There were two
rebellions against Edward, one resulting in his becoming Warwick's prisoner
and another forcing him to flee overseas. These weren't spontaneous
uprisings, rather they were carefully planned and well-executed, which also
means they were almost certainly in the planning stage for some time. As
demonstrated by later events, the one certain threat to Edward remaining on
the throne was an alliance between the Lancastrians and any discontented
nobles; nobles such as Warwick and, perhaps in Edward's fears, Norfolk?
Lacking modern means of communications, and also the modern means of
interception, sources of information almost invariably were people placed in
the households of subjects, particularly the nobility. IOW, someone in
Norfolk's household was passing information back to Edward; otherwise, how
did Edward (or one of Edward's men) discover that Alford and Poiner had ever
called on/been in communication with the Beauforts?
As for the pardons later issued for the Duke and Duchess, if I recall it
correctly, because they'd been guilty of misprision of treason, if only
technically, simply by having those two men in their employ and not because
of any particular activity on either the Duke or Duchess' part.
Basically, it seems to me that there are 'way too many other explanations,
valid explanations, for what happened to Alford and Poiner to say with any
sort of finality that those two were executed, not because of what they were
charged with, but because Edward wanted to issue a "warning" to the Duchess
about whatever she might have known about Edward and her sister.
May be it's just me?
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"No, this happened in 1468, such that they were absent when Lady Eleanor
conveniently died on 30th June. The treasonous correspondence is mentioned
in the references and source I have mentioned:
When Elizabeth Talbot was in Flanders in 1468, some of her servants
reportedly called upon the exiled Beauforts, provoking the wrath of Edward
IV (ch.4, n.23).
Chronicles of the White Rose of York (Hearne's Fragment) pp.20-1: The fact
that the two men were of the Norfolk affinity is attested by a letter of 9
December 1468 from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton.. This reports
that one Alford and one Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, were
beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. J.Kirby ed. The Plumpton Letters and
Papers, Cambridge, 1996, p.40 (ch.17, n.28)."



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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-24 16:57:01
brian\_yorkist
For anyone interested, there's a fair bit of information on Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk in the books about the Paston family by Colin Richmond.
At the risk of stating the obvious (apologies if I do) she was first cousin to the exiled Somerset and his bro, and their sister, Lady Anne Paston, was in her circle. So it's not beyond the realms of the possible that she would take the opportunity, while in Burgundy, to make some contact with her cousins, if only for what might be called "human" reasons. This is of course, pure speculation on my part. It is equally possible she did not touch them with a Flemish bargepole.
Richmond points out that Elizabeth's wider social circle included Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham, which provides further food for thought. Of course they were all cousins, but who wasn't?
She was badly ripped off by Edward IV who took some of her dower lands to "boost" her daughter's inheritance. Another example of Edward's "flexible" attitude to property and inheritance.
Since Eleanor Talbot was under her "protection" in later life, there is a fair chance that Elizabeth knew the full SP about Eleanor and Edward. Whatever, if anything, there was to know.
Finally, Richard III granted her Chelsea (the manor not the football club) in return for the service of a red rose. A red rose? Maybe it's me, but I find that intriguing. But this might be seen as some element of compensation for what Edward IV had done. After Bosworth she was "persuaded" to hand this juicy manor to Reginald Bray. She herself decided life would be easier in the Minories - where she rented a house and gathered about her a collection of dispossessed Yorkist ladies. Her diary would be an interesting read!
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-24 17:18:37
Stephen
Yes it would. Torturing/ executing the servants of a noble was frequently used to make the noble talk, such as Sir Geoffrey Pole giving evidence against his brother Lord Montagu in 1538.
So Norfolk's two servants were executed in 1468 and the whole Mowbray family was absent during Lady Eleanor's convenient death. Then the Duke died in 1476, again conveniently.

Incidentally, these Plumpton references are only in the paperback (2016) Eleanor.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 24 June 2019 16:00
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 


Stephen,
First off, my apologies for mistyping the year of Margaret's departure for
Flanders; it should have read "1468," not 1483!
Am I correct in presuming that during the period we're interested in
"correspondence" could mean simply meeting someone and ANY meeting with the
Beauforts could, because of their Attainders, result in charges of treason?
Then there's the idea that executing "gentlemen to my Lord of Norfolk" is
somehow a "shot across the bow" to "my Lady of Norfolk." Perhaps I'm
mistaken, but a lady of such rank would have her own household including
male servants, wouldn't she? Why not execute someone from her household?
Especially if, as it seems it's the idea, the charges weren't true? OTOH, if
the charges were true, then, depending on exactly what occurred during that
"correspondence" between Alford, Poiner and the Beauforts, being executed
for treason may have been the proper outcome.
Again, I fall back on what happened during 1469/70. There were two
rebellions against Edward, one resulting in his becoming Warwick's prisoner
and another forcing him to flee overseas. These weren't spontaneous
uprisings, rather they were carefully planned and well-executed, which also
means they were almost certainly in the planning stage for some time. As
demonstrated by later events, the one certain threat to Edward remaining on
the throne was an alliance between the Lancastrians and any discontented
nobles; nobles such as Warwick and, perhaps in Edward's fears, Norfolk?
Lacking modern means of communications, and also the modern means of
interception, sources of information almost invariably were people placed in
the households of subjects, particularly the nobility. IOW, someone in
Norfolk's household was passing information back to Edward; otherwise, how
did Edward (or one of Edward's men) discover that Alford and Poiner had ever
called on/been in communication with the Beauforts?
As for the pardons later issued for the Duke and Duchess, if I recall it
correctly, because they'd been guilty of misprision of treason, if only
technically, simply by having those two men in their employ and not because
of any particular activity on either the Duke or Duchess' part.
Basically, it seems to me that there are 'way too many other explanations,
valid explanations, for what happened to Alford and Poiner to say with any
sort of finality that those two were executed, not because of what they were
charged with, but because Edward wanted to issue a "warning" to the Duchess
about whatever she might have known about Edward and her sister.
May be it's just me?
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"No, this happened in 1468, such that they were absent when Lady Eleanor
conveniently died on 30th June. The treasonous correspondence is mentioned
in the references and source I have mentioned:
When Elizabeth Talbot was in Flanders in 1468, some of her servants
reportedly called upon the exiled Beauforts, provoking the wrath of Edward
IV (ch.4, n.23).
Chronicles of the White Rose of York (Hearne's Fragment) pp.20-1: The fact
that the two men were of the Norfolk affinity is attested by a letter of 9
December 1468 from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton.. This reports
that one Alford and one Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, were
beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. J.Kirby ed. The Plumpton Letters and
Papers, Cambridge, 1996, p.40 (ch.17, n.28)."

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




Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-25 00:39:39
mariewalsh2003

Big correction. Mea culpa.


I was relying on old notes I had made for Cecily's visit to Sandwich in 1469. I have now looked up the original source, which is the chronicle of a monk of Canterbury. Making allowance for one apparent slip in the numbering (possibly a transcribing error), the timeline is as follows (source, Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. W. G. Searle, Cambridge, 1902, pp. 110-111):

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury (it is not clear when he left

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury for Queenborough Castle

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville offered at St. Thomas' shrine

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him).


I suppose one could argue whether Cecily's visit might have caused Warwick and Clarence to leave Sandwich and delay their departure for Calais.


Marie







Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-25 09:46:25
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, it's at least ten years since I spent a lot of time in 1468/69 so I'm glad I remembered it right! Thanks.
I have to say re-visiting Hicks' Clarence it really is a good book. Such a pity he sullied his reputation with that awful work on Anne. H
On Tuesday, 25 June 2019, 00:39:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Big correction. Mea culpa.


I was relying on old notes I had made for Cecily's visit to Sandwich in 1469. I have now looked up the original source, which is the chronicle of a monk of Canterbury. Making allowance for one apparent slip in the numbering (possibly a transcribing error), the timeline is as follows (source, Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. W. G. Searle, Cambridge, 1902, pp. 110-111):

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury (it is not clear when he left

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury for Queenborough Castle

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville offered at St. Thomas' shrine

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him).


I suppose one could argue whether Cecily's visit might have caused Warwick and Clarence to leave Sandwich and delay their departure for Calais.


Marie







Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-25 13:45:32
Doug Stamate
Mary, Thank you for this information! As I wrote in my other post, if we place what happened to Alford and Poiner in the context of what was happening at this time (which was the run-up to the rebellions of 1469-70 which included Edward's capture by Warwick and his eventually having to flee to Flanders), I'm a bit leery of attributing what happened to those two as anything out of the norm. After all, it's not as if there wasn't any conspiring going on, is it? Doug Mary wrote: Hi Doug As Stephen has said above they were charged with treason because they were in contact with the Duke of Somerset. JAH also says that there were two sources that suggest that they were condemned but not executed. However, he suggests that they seem confused about the date so may not be accurate, he cites H Ellis,ed,R Fabyan The New Chronicles of England and France and C I Kingsford, ed, Chronicles of London. JAH also says the her brother Sir Humphrey Talbot was with Elizabeth in Bruges.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-25 16:38:02
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary and others,


Just one addition to the timeline - I have added the special licence for the marriage which was granted by Cardinal Bourchier (who as Archbishop of Canterbury had sole jurisdiction over ecclesiastical and spiritual matters in Calais and its marches). Also a couple of extra details which may help with discerning a narrative. I wonder, did Warwick and his brother the Archbishop of York not initially realise they would need a licence from Cardinal Bourchier for George and Isabel to wed in Calais without having banns read on three separate Sundays? You'd think they would have known, given Warwick's long association with Calais and his brother's high standing in the English church hierarchy, but their delay in seeking the licence, and Archbishop Neville's arrogant behaviour in Canterbury, are hard to fathom otherwise. Could Cecily have jogged their memories?

I'm interested that Cecily seems to have travelled to Sandwich two days behind Clarence. What was going on there?


TIMELINE

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury, where he scandalised the clergy because he had not yet offered the customary jewel to St. Thomas's shrine, and now he avoided visiting the tomb, going to the shrine of St. Augustine instead. He also went around the place carrying a cross upright, "which has never been seen before". (It is not clear when GN left Canterbury.)

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick (but not George Neville) returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury saying they were headed for Queenborough Castle

Sunday 25 June - At his manor of Knole (halfway between Canterbury and Queenborough) Archbishop Bourchier issued a special licence for George and Isabel to marry in the castle chapel at Calais after the issue of only one set of banns.

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book

1 July - Thomas Stonor wrote from London to his son William asking him to get a fletcher named Kyng to make a dozen broad arrows for "a gentleman of my Lord Archbishop's of York"]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville finally offered his jewel at St. Thomas' shrine "as by agreement between the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Archbishop of York, in the presence of Richard Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Oxford

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him). The banns must have been issued on the same day that they were wed, I think.


Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-26 14:59:54
Doug Stamate
Stephen,
While there's certainly food for thought in these deaths, I'm still hesitant
for fear that what we're doing is trying to see a pattern in events in order
to bolster a pre-conceived thesis when there isn't one.
The example you give for torturing servants in order to get their employers
to talk comes from the Tudor period. My understanding is that one of the
items held against the Tudors was their introduction of torture into the
English legal system where, if not unknown, information given under torture
wasn't considered legal; although I also seem to recall that there was a
special process was in place in order that, should torture be considered,
the results could be used in law. I'll have to see what I can find on it.
Doug
My birthday is next month and it looks as if one or two of JA-H's books will
be self-given "gifts"...

Stephen wrote:
"Yes it would. Torturing/ executing the servants of a noble was frequently
used to make the noble talk, such as Sir Geoffrey Pole giving evidence
against his brother Lord Montagu in 1538.
So Norfolk's two servants were executed in 1468 and the whole Mowbray family
was absent during Lady Eleanor's convenient death. Then the Duke died in
1476, again conveniently.
Incidentally, these Plumpton references are only in the paperback (2016)
Eleanor."




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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-26 15:34:26
Doug Stamate
Brian, When I checked the Wikipedia articles on the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk, the ancestry section didn't mention anything other than parents, grandparents, etc., so I didn't know about the family connections. If the contacts were simply those of a family member attempting to retain contacts with another, then the executions of Alford and Poiner do seem extreme. OTOH, there's the question of just who Alford and Poiner were. They're called gentlemen of Norfolk's household, but what does that mean? Obviously they were considered part of Norfolk's affinity, but was Norfolk, or any noble for that matter, to be held accountable for the actions of someone in their affinity? Then there's the question of how long had they been with Norfolk and what exactly their jobs/duties, if any, were? If they'd been employed by someone else previously, who was that person, or persons? Edward later issued pardons for both the Duke and Duchess, but pardoning them doesn't mean they weren't involved in something other than trying to maintain family contacts. Considering the state of political England in 1468/69/70, absent direct, concrete proof that the Duke or Duchess, or both, were contacting the Beauforts as part of some sort of conspiracy/plot, there wasn't much else Edward could do. Since Anne wasn't born until 1473 (I think), I don't think Edward's actions regarding those dower lands had anything to do with this matter. At least not in the sense of providing a motive for the Duchess to contact her Beaufort relatives in some sort of plot to get back at Edward. However, if Eleanor was, as you wrote, under the Duchess' protection later in life, then the Duchess is a prime candidate as the instigator of any investigation/s into Edward/Eleanor. Doug Brian wrote: For anyone interested, there's a fair bit of information on Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk in the books about the Paston family by Colin Richmond. At the risk of stating the obvious (apologies if I do) she was first cousin to the exiled Somerset and his bro, and their sister, Lady Anne Paston, was in her circle. So it's not beyond the realms of the possible that she would take the opportunity, while in Burgundy, to make some contact with her cousins, if only for what might be called "human" reasons. This is of course, pure speculation on my part. It is equally possible she did not touch them with a Flemish bargepole. Richmond points out that Elizabeth's wider social circle included Margaret Beaufort and Buckingham, which provides further food for thought. Of course they were all cousins, but who wasn't? She was badly ripped off by Edward IV who took some of her dower lands to "boost&quo t; her daughter's inheritance. Another example of Edward's "flexible" attitude to property and inheritance. Since Eleanor Talbot was under her "protection" in later life, there is a fair chance that Elizabeth knew the full SP about Eleanor and Edward. Whatever, if anything, there was to know. Finally, Richard III granted her Chelsea (the manor not the football club) in return for the service of a red rose. A red rose? Maybe it's me, but I find that intriguing. But this might be seen as some element of compensation for what Edward IV had done. After Bosworth she was "persuaded" to hand this juicy manor to Reginald Bray. She herself decided life would be easier in the Minories - where she rented a house and gathered about her a collection of dispossessed Yorkist ladies. Her diary would be an interesting read!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-26 16:12:10
Stephen
It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk servants to visit those Beauforts.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 26 June 2019 14:59
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa

 


Stephen,
While there's certainly food for thought in these deaths, I'm still hesitant
for fear that what we're doing is trying to see a pattern in events in order
to bolster a pre-conceived thesis when there isn't one.
The example you give for torturing servants in order to get their employers
to talk comes from the Tudor period. My understanding is that one of the
items held against the Tudors was their introduction of torture into the
English legal system where, if not unknown, information given under torture
wasn't considered legal; although I also seem to recall that there was a
special process was in place in order that, should torture be considered,
the results could be used in law. I'll have to see what I can find on it.
Doug
My birthday is next month and it looks as if one or two of JA-H's books will
be self-given "gifts"...

Stephen wrote:
"Yes it would. Torturing/ executing the servants of a noble was frequently
used to make the noble talk, such as Sir Geoffrey Pole giving evidence
against his brother Lord Montagu in 1538.
So Norfolk's two servants were executed in 1468 and the whole Mowbray family
was absent during Lady Eleanor's convenient death. Then the Duke died in
1476, again conveniently.
Incidentally, these Plumpton references are only in the paperback (2016)
Eleanor."

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




Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-27 12:42:22
Hilary Jones
Can I add a bit more to this? In noble households there are servants (the spit-turners and bed-makers on minimum wage) and servants (the gentry like those who surrounded Richard). If John Poyner was Poyner and not Poyntz (although both would do) he was a member of a family in the High Sheriff network in Salop. His family were inter-married with the Corbets, Talbots, Burtons in fact most of the Welsh border affinity. So he probably came to the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk as part of Elizabeth's retinue. Alford I have yet to find but it's a Lincolnshire name.
You may have noticed the name Burton, another HS family, as was Haukeston, also from the area. At about the same time as this, one Thomas Burton (or Burdon) was busy creating a false pre-dated pedigree for his mother, Alana Kendale, who was also the mother of Ankarette (Haukeston) Twynyho. Now Ankarette's brother-in-law, John, was the great friend of Clarence. So, if the EB incident was whispered among the Shropshire gentry there's indeed a chance that whisper could have got to George.
That would sum it up neatly, but I'm also fifty-fifty with Doug. If you look at the footnotes to the letter the executions came at a time when Edward was almost panicking to find traitors working for the Lancastrians, including Oxford. Another guy (Stery (?)) was executed the day before on similar sorts of charges. In fact in these sort of incidents Edward reminds me of his grandson, Henry VIII, who flailed around executing everyone remotely suspicious in the 1530s. H

On Wednesday, 26 June 2019, 16:21:47 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk servants to visit those Beauforts.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 26 June 2019 14:59
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa



Stephen,
While there's certainly food for thought in these deaths, I'm still hesitant
for fear that what we're doing is trying to see a pattern in events in order
to bolster a pre-conceived thesis when there isn't one.
The example you give for torturing servants in order to get their employers
to talk comes from the Tudor period. My understanding is that one of the
items held against the Tudors was their introduction of torture into the
English legal system where, if not unknown, information given under torture
wasn't considered legal; although I also seem to recall that there was a
special process was in place in order that, should torture be considered,
the results could be used in law. I'll have to see what I can find on it.
Doug
My birthday is next month and it looks as if one or two of JA-H's books will
be self-given "gifts"...

Stephen wrote:
"Yes it would. Torturing/ executing the servants of a noble was frequently
used to make the noble talk, such as Sir Geoffrey Pole giving evidence
against his brother Lord Montagu in 1538.
So Norfolk's two servants were executed in 1468 and the whole Mowbray family
was absent during Lady Eleanor's convenient death. Then the Duke died in
1476, again conveniently.
Incidentally, these Plumpton references are only in the paperback (2016)
Eleanor."

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



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-27 19:26:34
mariewalsh2003

Hi,

This is not particularly a reply to this last post of yours, Stephen, but a general discussion of the 1468 stuff.

I'm afraid I can't remember exactly who has said what on this subject, but as some other members have posted, we need to remember the general political context of the arrests of the Duke of Norfolk's gentlemen, the Duchess's relationship to the Duke of Somerset (they were first cousins) and the fact that their paths almost crossed at the beginning of July 1468.

1468 is the year when Edward had a large number of people  some very prominent  arrested on suspicion of plotting with the Lancastrians. He was clearly very alarmed, though how real the plots were we shall probably never know. I'm afraid I don't have all he details to hand, but Sir Thomas Cook was (famously) one of the first arrested, just as Margaret was about to set sail. Another suspect, one Cornelius, was brought to Edward at Stratford Abbey in mid June when he was there to accompany Margaret to Margate; Cornelius was taken to the Tower and had his feet burnt with hot irons. Then there was another crisis in the autumn. This is where the Plumpton letter comes in, written in London on 9 December:-

My Lord of Oxford is comitt to the tower, and it is said kept in irons, and that he has confessed myche things;

and on Munday afore St. Andrew day [i. e. 28 November] one Alford and Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, and one Sr peirs, Skinner of London, were beheaded;

and on the morne [i.e. 29 November] was Sir Thomas Tresham arest and is comit to the tower; and it is said he was arested upon the confession of my Lo. of Oxford, and they say his livelhood, and Sir John Marney livelhood, and divers other livelhuds is given away by the king.

Also there is arest Mr. Hungerford, the heir unto the Earle of Devonshire, and many other, whose names I know nott; and it is said that Sir Edmund Hungerford is send for.

And also the yeomen of the Crowne bene riden into diverse countries to arrest men that be apeched.

Also it was told me that Sir Robt' Ughtred was send for, but I trust to God it is not so. . . .

I expect Poyntz is more accurate than Poyner. have also seen the skinner's name given as Richard Stairs, with the information that he was a famous tennis player and a retainer of the Duke of Exeter.

The Duchess of Norfolk was granted a general pardon on 7 December (the patent is dated the 8th, but the pardon covered offences up to the 7th, which will be the date the King wrote out the warrant). On 11 or 12 December a commission of oyer and terminer including all the top names was appointed to enquire into treasons in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Devon. This was the commission which sat at Salisbury in the King's presence on 16-19 January 1469 and condemned Hungerford and Courtenay, who were said to have plotted the King's death at Salisbury on 21 May 1468.

I don't know what evidence we have for the precise charges against the Duchess of Norfolk and the Duke's gentlemen, but it might be of interest that the Duchess' brother Sir Humphrey Talbot received a general pardon not long after, on 28 January 1469 (CPR, p. 122).

The dukes of Exeter and Somerset had settled in Bruges after the Lancastrian defeats of 1464, and only left the city the day before Margaret arrived (Duke Charles told them he could no longer support them, and they probably went to join QM's little court in France). So there was certainly an opportunity for Somerset to make contact with his cousin the Duchess of Norfolk while she was over.

I'm afraid, given all that was going on, I do agree with those (Doug?) who feel that there is no reason to see the Duchess of Norfolk's trouble as having anything to do with Eleanor's death. Apart from anything else, Eleanor did not die unexpectedly. She demised at least some of her estates about a month (I think  Stephen can correct me) before her death, and she also left a testament. Given that she was buried in Norwich, it looks likely that she was living with her sister at the time, and had she been fit and well would therefore probably have travelled with her to Bruges. If the Duchess was unhappy with Edward IV in 1468 and it had anything to do with Eleanor, is it not more likely to have been that he had commanded her to leave her dying sister in order to travel abroad to see his own his sister married?

The link to Desmond is very tenuous (and these sons of Desmond's rumoured to have been executed with him are impossible to identify) as the story linking his death to his statements about the royal marriage does not involve any claim that Edward was already spoken for. The person, other than Eleanor, who would have been a real threat is Stillington, and he lived to a ripe old age; so did the Duchess of Norfolk. In an period with such short life expectancy every story involves some persons who lived short lives. Surely we can do better, given that the case for Richard having waded in blood to the throne rests on very similar arguments  i.e. that all the people who might have stood in his way were conveniently dead.

Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-28 16:06:42
Doug Stamate
Marie, I have to admit I don't know that much about the events of 1468-70, but the idea that his opposition to Edward was Warwick maneuvering to get the Woodville marriage set aside makes more sense than what I have seen. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Louis was involved! Doug Marie wrote: Hi all,

Just back from holiday. I skimmed through the posts I missed early this morning when I couldn't sleep and made a few notes. Too much for one post, so I'll try to post them by separately subject, if they'll divide up nicely. Here is the first.

As it happens, I've been looking at the events of 1469 lately, so although they are somewhat confused, I am a lot clearer about the goings-on than I was.

The story of Edward's own bastardy may well have come from the French, as has already been suggested on the forum, and it may well be that Warwick refrained from using it (at least in 1469) although it clearly had a long-term affect on Clarence, who was repeating it before his final arrest.

The evidence strongly suggests that Warwick's plan in 1469 was simply to destroy his rivals at court and get the W oodville marriage set aside. The petition that the northern rebels used did not attack Edward IV himself, but did the usual thing of blaming all the ills of his government on his advisors, amongst whom it specifically named "the Lord Rivers, the Duchess of Bedford his wife, and their sons, Sir William Herbert the Earl of Pembroke, Humphrey Stafford the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Audley, Sir John Fogge".

Those of the above men who were caught were executed, either by the northern army or on Warwick's personal order; the Duchess of Bedford was tried for witchcraft. After capturing Edward, Warwick and Clarence simply took him to Warwick Castle and made him continue issuing warrants and decrees as though he were merely a guest and still in control. The Duchess of Bedford's witchcraft trial indicates that Warwick was seeking to annul the Woodville marriage rather than depose Edward (this is what Hicks probably means when he says there was talk at that time of Edward's issue being bastards).

However, just one week after Edward's capture the Milanese ambassador at Louis' court was told that the Earl of Warwick had "made a certain invention, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and rule does not legitimately belong to him but directly and duly belongs to the foregoing duke of Clarence." But there is no evidence that Warwick was tryng to put Clarence forward. Rather, when the country became ungovernable with Edward clearly a prisoner at Middleham, he simply let him travel to York with his brother the Archbishop as his minder, in order that he could be seen to be personally in charge of putting down the new rebellion and condemning its leader. (it was George Neville's failure to control Edward there that led to his complete release.)

So I think in 1469 Louis may have been pushing Warwick to depose Edward, but Warwick was not yet ready.

So, when Cecily visited Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich on 20 June, she probably hadn't heard anything to suggest the pair might be impugning her honour.

Why she visited them there is another question. She may have gone to try to persuade Clarence to change his mind about marrying Isabel Neville, but if so she didn't try very hard as she only dropped in for a day. Also, Edward IV seems to have been taken by surprise by the marriage, so, if his mother knew what was going on, did she not tell him? It is perhaps rather more plausible, IMO, that she disagreed with Edward on this matt er and went to Sandwich to give Clarence her blessing. Almost certainly she would have had no knowledge of all that was to come afterwards, although she may have disapproved of the Woodville marriage and may - just possibly - have been happy to see it forcibly dissolved.


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-29 14:47:45
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote:Marie,I have to admit I don't know that much about the events of 1468-70, but the idea that his opposition to Edward was Warwick maneuvering to get the Woodville marriage set aside makes more sense than what I have seen.And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Louis was involved!Doug


Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and

I've also looked a bit more at the accusation of witchcraft against the Duchess of Bedford. As a result, I'm less confident that Warwick's use of the bastardy claim was a lie put out by Louis XI. Basically:-
1) The Milanese letter was written on 8 August, after the news of the Battle of Edgcote had reached the French court, but before they had learned of Edward's capture. For some reason, it's not in Hinds' Calendar of Milanese State Papers, but Calmentte & Perinelle reproduce it in the original Italian in their Louis XI et l'Angleterre. Now, Italian isn't one of my languages, but this is the stab I made a translating the section relating to English affairs. It contains the usual amount of muddle you get in foreign accounts, and not surprisingly Bettini assumed the army that met with Herbert was the one that Warwick and Clarence had personally gathered:-The Earl of Warwick  what a powerful and great lord in that land!  having given one of his daughters as wife to the Duke of Clarence, brother of the King of England, came up with a certain idea, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and sovereignty do not lawfully belong to him but rightly and duly belong to the foregoing duke of Clarence. And, in order to divulge and spread this rumour throughout the land, this Earl of Warwick, together with the foresaid duke, his son-in-law, made a great assembly and a huge army in order to deprive the forementioned king of England of the crown and sovereignty and make this duke of Clarence king and sovereign.The foregoing King of England, having perceived this, similarly hade a great army and gathered together a great quantity of men, whose captain and governor was Lord Herbert, that king's lieutenant in Wales. They met with each other and made such a great battle together that, according to information that this Most Christian Lord King has had from diverse persons, about six or seven thousand persons died on both sides, amongst whom the foresaid Lord Herbert, the King's captain, is dead. Then the foregoing Duke of Clarence and Earl of Warwick retreated a little into that earl's territory, which is on the borders of Wales. And whatever kind and extent of a conclusion they truly intend and estimate [to have] from this thing, having made such a crude beginning to that matter it ought not to remain here. Of how much more they intend besides, your Highness will be informed. It does seem, from Bettini's description of the Battle of Edgcote, as though genuine news had just arrived from England. It seems to me that, having pulled off his daughter's marriage to Clarence and raised the country against Edward's rule (albeit under guise of getting rid of his favourites) Warwick must have felt tempted to at least test the waters to see how those same supporters of his would react to the idea of getting rid of Edward altogether in favour of Clarence, with Warwick's daughter as the new queen.
My current feeling is perhaps that the feedback Warwick got in relation to deposing Edward IV was not positive, and that this may be why he decided to settle for removing the Woodvilles entirely by convicting the Queen's mother of having made the royal marriage by love magic. Whether this trial was preplanned, or the discovery of a leaden image ("made lyke a Man of Armes, conteynyng the Iengthe of a mans fynger, and broken in the myddes, and made fast with a Wyre) amongst the Duchess's possessions when she was arrested revealed an opportunity, I don't know. It's possible that she was believed to dabble in witchcraft, and that Warwick therefore expected to find evidence of such activity when her house was searched. I'm inclined to believe the image that of the man-at-arms was genuinely found amongst Jacquetta's possessions, and that it probably represented Warwick. But although it could have got the Duchess condemned it would be no use for annulling her daughter's marriage. So a local priest, John Daunger, was prevailed upon to say he had seen two other images in the Duchess's keeping, of the king and queen, but he refused to confirm this (it's not clear if he positively denied it), and so the case stalled. The reason I think the first image was genuine is that, if Warwick had been prepared to have one piece of evidence planted, why not plant the images he really needed?
Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-29 15:25:32
Doug Stamate
Marie, Just wanted to let you know that it indeed was me who brought up the political situation and to thank you very much for fleshing out so much of what happened! I was concentrating on Edward and his dealings with Warwick, but apparently there were other worries, real or imagined, also affecting Edward's actions. My apologies for being so tardy, Doug Marie wrote: Hi,

This is not particularly a reply to this last post of yours, Stephen, but a general discussion of the 1468 stuff.

I'm afraid I can't remember exactly who has said what on this subject, but as some other members have posted, we need to remember the general political context of the arrests of the Duke of Norfolk's gentlemen, the Duchess's relationship to the Duke of Somerset (they were first cousins) and the fact that their paths almost crossed at the beginning of July 1468.

1468 is the year when Edward had a large number of people  some very prominent  arrested on suspicion of plotting with the Lancastrians. He was clearly very alarmed, though how real the plots were we shall probably never know. I'm afraid I don't have all he details to hand, but Sir Thomas Cook was (famously) one of the first arrested, just as Margaret was about to set sail. Another suspect, one Cornelius, was brought to Edward at Stratford Abbey in mid June when he was there to accompany Margaret to Margate; Cornelius was taken to the Tower and had his feet burnt with hot irons. Then there was another crisis in the autumn. This is where the Plumpton letter comes in, written in London on 9 December:-

My Lord of Oxford is comitt to the tower, and it is said kept in irons, and that he has confessed myche things;

and on Munday afore St. Andrew day [i. e. 28 November] one Alford and Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, and one Sr peirs, Skinner of London, were beheaded;

and on the morne [i.e. 29 November] was Sir Thomas Tresham arest and is comit to the tower; and it is said he was arested upon the confession of my Lo. of Oxford, and they say his livelhood, and Sir John Marney livelhood, and divers other livelhuds is given away by the king.

Also there is arest Mr. Hungerford, the heir unto the Earle of Devonshire, and many other, whose names I know nott; and it is said that Sir Edmund Hungerford is send for.

And also the yeomen of the Crowne bene riden into diverse countries to arrest men that be apeched.

Also it was told me that Sir Robt' Ughtred was send for, but I trust to God it is not so. . . .

I expect Poyntz is more accurate than Poyner. have also seen the skinner's name given as Richard Stairs, with the information that he was a famous tennis player and a retainer of the Duke of Exeter.

The Duchess of Norfolk was granted a general pardon on 7 December (the patent is dated the 8th, but the pardon covered offences up to the 7th, which will be the date the King wrote out the warrant). On 11 or 12 December a commission of oyer and terminer including all the top names was appointed to enquire into treasons in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Devon. This was the commission which sat at Salisbury in the King's presence on 16-19 January 1469 and condemned Hungerford and Courtenay, who were said to have plotted the King's death at Salisbury on 21 May 1468.

I don't know what evidence we have for the precise charges against the Duchess of Norfolk and the Duke's gentlemen, but it might be of interest that the Duchess' brother Sir Humphrey Talbot received a general pardon not long after, on 28 January 1469 (CPR, p. 122).

The dukes of Exeter and Somerset had settled in Bruges after the Lancastrian defeats of 1464, and only left the city the day before Margaret arrived (Duke Charles told them he could no longer support them, and they probably went to join QM's little court in France). So there was certainly an opportunity for Somerset to make contact with his cousin the Duchess of Norfolk while she was over.

I'm afraid, given all that was going on, I do agree with those (Doug?) who feel that there is no reason to see the Duchess of Norfolk's trouble as having anything to do with Eleanor's death. Apart from anything else, Eleanor did not die unexpectedly. She demised at least some of her estates about a month (I think  Stephen can correct me) before her death, and she also left a testament. Given that she was buried in Norwich, it looks likely that she was living with her sister at the time, and had she been fit and well would therefore probably have travelled with her to Bruges. If the Duchess was unhappy with Edward IV in 1468 and it had anything to do with Eleanor, is it not more likely to have been that he had commanded her to leave her dying sister in order to travel abroad to see his own his sister married?

The link to Desmond is very tenuous (and these sons of Desmond's rumoured to have been executed with him are impossible to identify) as the story linking his death to his statements about the royal marriage does not involve any claim that Edward was already spoken for. The person, other than Eleanor, who would have been a real threat is Stillington, and he lived to a ripe old age; so did the Duchess of Norfolk. In an period with such short life expectancy every story involves some persons who lived short lives. Surely we can do better, given that the case for Richard having waded in blood to the throne rests on very similar arguments  i.e. that all the people who might have stood in his way were conveniently dead.


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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-29 15:34:43
Doug Stamate
Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."



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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-29 15:48:49
Stephen Lark

It is all in the paperback "Eleanor". Lady Eleanor died when her close (geographical/ emotional) family were abroad. Only the cleric (Bishop Stillington) and the other lady (Lady Elizabeth) who knew didn't die and they fell into categories that couldn't judicially be silenced. Anyone who survived infancy and violence (if male, otherwise childbirth) could still have a long life at that time.

On 29 June 2019 at 15:34 "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:

 



Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating “Eleanor” for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers’ “plot” in this context.
The Talbot sisters’ mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban’s. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, “Earl of Dorset”, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two “Beauforts” were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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


 


 

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-29 15:58:03
Hilary Jones
Sorry Stephen but much as I respect JAH and his work this doesn't prove anything! H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, June 29, 2019, 3:48 pm, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It is all in the paperback "Eleanor". Lady Eleanor died when her close (geographical/ emotional) family were abroad. Only the cleric (Bishop Stillington) and the other lady (Lady Elizabeth) who knew didn't die and they fell into categories that couldn't judicially be silenced. Anyone who survived infancy and violence (if male, otherwise childbirth) could still have a long life at that time.

On 29 June 2019 at 15:34 "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:



Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-06-30 14:22:10
Doug Stamate
Marie, I had always presumed that those rumors of Edward's bastardy didn't show up until 1470, so it's very interesting to find them a year earlier. It does seem to appear, at least according to the informant, that Warwick's plan was to spread rumors of Edward's illegitimacy and use them as a means of gaining support for replacing Edward with George, doesn't it? Going by the ensuing events, I'd say your idea that the rumors were a testing of the waters on Warwick's part is almost certainly the correct interpretation. After all, if Warwick was determined to replace Edward no matter what, it's not as if later he didn't have the chance! As you wrote, however, if there wasn't support for replacing Edward with George , moving against the Woodvilles would be the next best step. I'm presuming that, had Jacquetta been convicted of witchcraft, it would have been a simple matter to have Edward and Elizabeth's marriage annulled? And, yes, it is interesting that, if the evidence against Jacquetta was manufactured, why wasn't it more convincing? Doug Who does wonder just when Warwick got the appellation of Kingmaker... Marie wrote: Doug wrote: Marie, I have to admit I don't know that much about the events of 1468-70, but the idea that his opposition to Edward was Warwick maneuvering to get the Woodville marriage set aside makes more sense than what I have seen. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Louis was involved! Doug

Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and I've also looked a bit more at the accusation of witchcraft against the Duchess of Bedford. As a result, I'm less confident that Warwick's use of the bastardy claim was a lie put out by Louis XI. Basically:-

1) The Milanese letter was written on 8 August, after the news of the Battle of Edgcote had reached the French court, but before they had learned of Edward's capture. For some reason, it's not in Hinds' Calendar of Milanese State Papers, but Calmentte & Perinelle reproduce it in the original Italian in their Louis XI et l'Angleterre. Now, Italian isn't one of my languages, but this is the stab I made a translating the section relating to English affairs. It contains the usual amount of muddle you get in foreign accounts, and not surprisingly Bettini assumed the army that met with Herbert was the one that Warwick and Clarence had personally gathered:- The Earl of Warwick  what a powerful and great lord in that land!  having given one of his daughters as wife to the Duke of Clarence, brother of the King of England, came up with a certain idea, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and sovereignty do not lawfully belong to him but rightly and duly belong to the foregoing duke of Clarence. And, in order to divulge and spread this rumour throughout the land, this Earl of Warwick, together with the foresaid duke, his son-in-law, made a great assembly and a huge army in order to deprive the forementioned king of England of the crown and sovereignty and make this duke of Clarence king and sovereign. The foregoing King of England, having perceived this, similarly hade a great army and gathered together a great quantity of men, whose captain and governor was Lord Herbert, that king's lieutenant in Wales. They met with each other and made such a great battle together that, according to information that this Most Christian Lord King has had from diverse persons, about six or seven thousand persons died on both sides, amongst whom the foresaid Lord Herbert, the King's captain, is dead. Then the foregoing Duke of Clarence and Earl of Warwick retreated a little into that earl's territory, which is on the borders of Wales. And whatever kind and extent of a conclusion they truly intend and estimate [to have] from this thing, having made such a crude beginning to that matter it ought not to remain here. Of how much more they intend besides, your Highness will be informed. It does seem, from Bettini's description of the Battle of Edgcote, as though genuine news had just arrived from England. It seems to me that, having pulled off his daughter's marriage to Clarence and raised the country against Edward's rule (albeit under guise of getting rid of his favourites) Warwick must have felt tempted to at least test the waters to see how those same supporters of his would react to the idea of getting rid of Edward altogether in favour of Clarence, with Warwick's daughter as the new queen.
My current feeling is perhaps that the feedback Warwick got in relation to deposing Edward IV was not positive, and that this may be why he decided to settle for removing the Woodvilles entirely by convicting the Queen's mother of having made the royal marriage by love magic. Whether this trial was preplanned, or the discovery of a leaden image ("made lyke a Man of Armes, conteynyng the Iengthe of a mans fynger, and broken in the myddes, and made fast with a Wyre) amongst the Duchess's possessions when she was arrested revealed an opportunity, I don't know. It's possible that she was believed to dabble in witchcraft, and that Warwick therefore expected to find evidence of such activity when her house was searched. I'm inclined to believe the image that of the man-at-arms was genuinely found amongst Jacquetta's possessions, and that it probably represented Warwick. But although it could have got the Duchess condemned it would be no use for annulling her daughter's marriage. So a local priest, John Daunger, was prevailed upon to say he had seen two other images in the Duchess's keeping, of the king and queen, but he refused to confirm this (it's not clear if he positively denied it), and so the case stalled. The reason I think the first image was genuine is that, if Warwick had been prepared to have one piece of evidence planted, why not plant the images he really needed?

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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-06-30 14:35:13
Doug Stamate
Stephen, A Bishop couldn't be silenced? Really? Stillington was never in a position where he couldn't have been set on by bandits and dying as a result of wounds incurred during the robbery? And if Eleanor was poisoned, what was to prevent her sister from suffering the same fate? Alford and Poiner were caught up in Edward's not-unjustified fear of Lancastrian plotting. Eleanor was ill well before she died. Stillington and Lady Elizabeth survived. The only unexplained death for which we have no determined reason is that of the Duke of Norfolk who was healthy one day and dropped dead the next, which sounds to me like a heart attack (possibly caused by high blood pressure?). As I've written, I don't dismiss the possibility of some grand plot to rid the world of those with knowledge of the Pre-Contract, but rather that these deaths, in and of themselves, don't really support that idea. Doug Stephen wrote: It is all in the paperback "Eleanor". Lady Eleanor died when her close (geographical/ emotional) family were abroad. Only the cleric (Bishop Stillington) and the other lady (Lady Elizabeth) who knew didn't die and they fell into categories that couldn't judicially be silenced. Anyone who survived infancy and violence (if male, otherwise childbirth) could still have a long life at that time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-01 10:07:56
Hilary Jones
Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions. It didn't work and by the time Edward had been moved to Middleham it was easy to let him wander off - er escape.
It would seem that though Warwick was undoubtedly a talented and popular person on the European scene (which is why there is so much in the State Papers about him) he didn't command the same popularity when it came to rivaling Edward at home. He ran into this again during the Readeption when he hadn't the popularity with the London merchants to swing them to a trade agreement with the French. In fact it brought the whole thing down.
I still find Warwick an attractive person, though. It's sad how the Yorkists threw so much talent away, whereas the Tudors (after HT) would have calmed them down with a few nice estates. H
On Saturday, 29 June 2019, 14:47:48 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Doug wrote:Marie,I have to admit I don't know that much about the events of 1468-70, but the idea that his opposition to Edward was Warwick maneuvering to get the Woodville marriage set aside makes more sense than what I have seen.And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Louis was involved!Doug


Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and

I've also looked a bit more at the accusation of witchcraft against the Duchess of Bedford. As a result, I'm less confident that Warwick's use of the bastardy claim was a lie put out by Louis XI. Basically:-
1) The Milanese letter was written on 8 August, after the news of the Battle of Edgcote had reached the French court, but before they had learned of Edward's capture. For some reason, it's not in Hinds' Calendar of Milanese State Papers, but Calmentte & Perinelle reproduce it in the original Italian in their Louis XI et l'Angleterre. Now, Italian isn't one of my languages, but this is the stab I made a translating the section relating to English affairs. It contains the usual amount of muddle you get in foreign accounts, and not surprisingly Bettini assumed the army that met with Herbert was the one that Warwick and Clarence had personally gathered:-The Earl of Warwick  what a powerful and great lord in that land!  having given one of his daughters as wife to the Duke of Clarence, brother of the King of England, came up with a certain idea, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and sovereignty do not lawfully belong to him but rightly and duly belong to the foregoing duke of Clarence. And, in order to divulge and spread this rumour throughout the land, this Earl of Warwick, together with the foresaid duke, his son-in-law, made a great assembly and a huge army in order to deprive the forementioned king of England of the crown and sovereignty and make this duke of Clarence king and sovereign.The foregoing King of England, having perceived this, similarly hade a great army and gathered together a great quantity of men, whose captain and governor was Lord Herbert, that king's lieutenant in Wales. They met with each other and made such a great battle together that, according to information that this Most Christian Lord King has had from diverse persons, about six or seven thousand persons died on both sides, amongst whom the foresaid Lord Herbert, the King's captain, is dead. Then the foregoing Duke of Clarence and Earl of Warwick retreated a little into that earl's territory, which is on the borders of Wales. And whatever kind and extent of a conclusion they truly intend and estimate [to have] from this thing, having made such a crude beginning to that matter it ought not to remain here. Of how much more they intend besides, your Highness will be informed. It does seem, from Bettini's description of the Battle of Edgcote, as though genuine news had just arrived from England. It seems to me that, having pulled off his daughter's marriage to Clarence and raised the country against Edward's rule (albeit under guise of getting rid of his favourites) Warwick must have felt tempted to at least test the waters to see how those same supporters of his would react to the idea of getting rid of Edward altogether in favour of Clarence, with Warwick's daughter as the new queen.
My current feeling is perhaps that the feedback Warwick got in relation to deposing Edward IV was not positive, and that this may be why he decided to settle for removing the Woodvilles entirely by convicting the Queen's mother of having made the royal marriage by love magic. Whether this trial was preplanned, or the discovery of a leaden image ("made lyke a Man of Armes, conteynyng the Iengthe of a mans fynger, and broken in the myddes, and made fast with a Wyre) amongst the Duchess's possessions when she was arrested revealed an opportunity, I don't know. It's possible that she was believed to dabble in witchcraft, and that Warwick therefore expected to find evidence of such activity when her house was searched. I'm inclined to believe the image that of the man-at-arms was genuinely found amongst Jacquetta's possessions, and that it probably represented Warwick. But although it could have got the Duchess condemned it would be no use for annulling her daughter's marriage. So a local priest, John Daunger, was prevailed upon to say he had seen two other images in the Duchess's keeping, of the king and queen, but he refused to confirm this (it's not clear if he positively denied it), and so the case stalled. The reason I think the first image was genuine is that, if Warwick had been prepared to have one piece of evidence planted, why not plant the images he really needed?
Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-01 11:08:17
Hilary Jones
Doug, just a snippet of info don't know whether it's useful or not. Hicks has Mowbray 'dying in the night'. Which does sound like a heart attack, though he was young. Could have been poison I suppose, but I'd have thought that more dramatic? H
On Saturday, 29 June 2019, 15:34:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-01 12:06:24
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.



Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?


By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.


There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-01 13:26:35
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
Quick reply. Yes I think Hicks's 'Clarence' is thorough and fair - something you don't find often with George. Edward V I haven't read - you just told me about it so I'll look it up.
The rest I would agree with from the work I did a long time ago. Having read Carpenter and her Warwickshire gentry since, one of the things she points out is that Warwick, a northerner was always a.'foreigner' to the people of Warwickshire who had had years of the Beauchamps. He didn't really make an impact because he was rarely there and Edward, as usual like to interfer and stir things up with the gentry. So choosing Coventry as a sort of rallying point was a big mistake. The people of Coventry were always fickle - and continued to be so for centuries.
I've also done a fair bit on the Yorkshire gentry and one thing you keep bumping into is the lingering memory of the Hotspur rebellion and the reprisals including particularly the execution of Archbishop Scrope. Now you would have thought that would have made them anti-Lancaster, but it also seemed to make them anti southern authority with the Percies in the lead. So easy for Warwick to harness some of that and of course the Conyers family (Robin of Redesdale?) who had also had their leader executed with Scrope and the others.
BTW going back to your post about Poiner and Alford I think it could be John Poyner. The two John Poyntz's were too old and one was a knight. The Poyners on the other hand were Shropshire gentry in the same circles as the Talbots even given the fact that the Poyntz's were from the south west and probably retainers of Somerset. Just my opinion though. H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 12:06:26 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.



Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?


By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.


There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]


Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-01 15:57:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Barring further information, I'm tending towards the possibility that the Duke of Norfolk died of a heart attack brought about by something such as high blood pressure. While symptoms of diseases were often well-known, the causes weren't. So something such as a heart attack brought on by the effects of high blood pressure could easily be described as unexpected or sudden with later hints of poison popping up as an explanation. Mowbray was 32 when he died so, while comparatively young, he was also old enough to have time for high blood pressure to have affected his heart without any symptoms. The Google search I did listed various contributors to high blood pressure, but most wouldn't apply in Mowbray's case. In his case, too much alcohol, diet and/or too much salt might have been the causes. And we really shouldn't forget the possibility that he suffered from some sort of birth defect in regards to his heart which would not only likely be noticed early on nowadays, but also treated; neither of which would have been possible in the 1460's. I have to admit there are times when I just sit back and ponder all those deaths put down to poison and wonder what modern medicine would make of them... Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, just a snippet of info don't know whether it's useful or not. Hicks has Mowbray 'dying in the night'. Which does sound like a heart attack, though he was young. Could have been poison I suppose, but I'd have thought that more dramatic?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-01 18:25:07
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote to Hilary,"Barring further information, I'm tending towards the possibility that the Duke of Norfolk died of a heart attack brought about by something such as high blood pressure. While symptoms of diseases were often well-known, the causes weren't. So something such as a heart attack brought on by the effects of high blood pressure could easily be described as unexpected or sudden with later hints of poison popping up as an explanation."


Marie butts in:

The detail we have about the Duke of Norfolk's death come from the Paston Letters. It's short enough, but makes the suddenness of the event very clear. Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John in London:

"Like it you to wete that, not in the most happy season for me, it is so fortuned that, whereas my Lord of Norfolk, yesterday being in good health, this night died about midnight. . . ." (vol 5, p. 245 in Gairdner's edition)



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-01 21:27:23
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I have just managed to catch up on these very interesting conversations.
I have never known what to make of Warwick and Clarence's allegations of Edward's bastardy. I always suspected that it may have been a rumour and they never actually said it themselves as it really is a most appalling slur on a respected member of their family. However, the Milanese letter clearly associates the rumours with them. Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story, and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.

Whatever grievance they had with Edward, why didn't Warwick or Clarence defend Cecily's honour? Even if true, they had little relevance for Edward beyond embarrassment as he was legally Richard of York's son and his legitimate heir, but it would have been a huge affront to Cecily's honour, so if I find it difficult to understand why she would have any time for Warwick at all, especially it was nothing but slander. It does make me wonder if there is some substance to Michael Jones' theories. I can't imagine Cecily slumming it with an archer, but I don't rule out her having an affair with someone more senior. Possibly it was an open secret that ultimately had a catastrophic impact on the family's psychological balance, which may provide an explanation for Clarence sense of entitlement.

As for Warwick, there was much to admire, but megalomania seems to have been his weak point, and I suspect that disappointed in not being able to use his role as Kingmaker to control Edward, he saw a more pliable protegee in Clarence. He may have started out hoping to remove the Woodvilles, but once Isabel was married to Clarence any loyalty he once had deserted him.

I tend to agree that the fact that Warwick didn't find the conclusive evidence that he sought suggests that the what he did find indicated some guilt on the Duchess of Bedford's part. Could Warwick have used it to push Edward to annul the EW marriage, or did he know that is was bigamous and there was no marriage to annul? Even if he did, at that point, he may not have cared, because Clarence as King and Isabel as Queen was a much more attractive prospect.
Nico



On Monday, 1 July 2019, 13:27:30 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Quick reply. Yes I think Hicks's 'Clarence' is thorough and fair - something you don't find often with George. Edward V I haven't read - you just told me about it so I'll look it up.
The rest I would agree with from the work I did a long time ago. Having read Carpenter and her Warwickshire gentry since, one of the things she points out is that Warwick, a northerner was always a.'foreigner' to the people of Warwickshire who had had years of the Beauchamps. He didn't really make an impact because he was rarely there and Edward, as usual like to interfer and stir things up with the gentry. So choosing Coventry as a sort of rallying point was a big mistake. The people of Coventry were always fickle - and continued to be so for centuries.
I've also done a fair bit on the Yorkshire gentry and one thing you keep bumping into is the lingering memory of the Hotspur rebellion and the reprisals including particularly the execution of Archbishop Scrope. Now you would have thought that would have made them anti-Lancaster, but it also seemed to make them anti southern authority with the Percies in the lead. So easy for Warwick to harness some of that and of course the Conyers family (Robin of Redesdale?) who had also had their leader executed with Scrope and the others.
BTW going back to your post about Poiner and Alford I think it could be John Poyner. The two John Poyntz's were too old and one was a knight. The Poyners on the other hand were Shropshire gentry in the same circles as the Talbots even given the fact that the Poyntz's were from the south west and probably retainers of Somerset. Just my opinion though. H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 12:06:26 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.



Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?


By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.


There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]


Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-01 21:29:09
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I wasn't convinced about the poisoning theory. J-AH didn't present andy solid evidence to back it up. As Doug says, a heart attack was a realistic possibility, as was a stroke/brain hemorrhage. The Duke of Norfolk was only 31, but heart attacks and strokes do affect younger people suddenly, especially if there is a family history of it. If he was asthmatic, it is more likely to have a serious attack at night. You can also die of sepsis very quickly too. Is it known what Anne Mowbray died of? There may have been a genetic disposition to a condition. Given the lack evidence to the contrary, I suspect that both he and Eleanor died of natural causes.

Nico

On Monday, 1 July 2019, 18:25:10 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Doug wrote to Hilary,"Barring further information, I'm tending towards the possibility that the Duke of Norfolk died of a heart attack brought about by something such as high blood pressure. While symptoms of diseases were often well-known, the causes weren't. So something such as a heart attack brought on by the effects of high blood pressure could easily be described as unexpected or sudden with later hints of poison popping up as an explanation."


Marie butts in:

The detail we have about the Duke of Norfolk's death come from the Paston Letters. It's short enough, but makes the suddenness of the event very clear. Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John in London:

"Like it you to wete that, not in the most happy season for me, it is so fortuned that, whereas my Lord of Norfolk, yesterday being in good health, this night died about midnight. . . ." (vol 5, p. 245 in Gairdner's edition)



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-01 23:45:08
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.


Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-02 11:02:44
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for clarifying that, Marie.
If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable? It does seem such a pointless soap opera accusation and so beneath a man of Warwick's achievement, stature and talent, unless he had evidence that to prove it was true. Unlike Edward V whose illegitimacy, which was based on the invalidity of the marriage of his parents, there was no doubt that Cecily and Richard of York were legally married. Therefore, the presumption of paternity protected Edward's rights as RofY's son, and therefore his right to the throne. Surely Warwick would have been aware of that. Idle gossip about his parentage was legally irrelevant, so to back up his argument Warwick would have to prove that RofY and Cecily were not in the same place during the physically possible timeline for Edward's conception. Michael Jones' theory has some holes in it as it doesn't allow for possibilities where they could have met. However, Warwick may have been aware where RoY was and knew that he hadn't seen Cecily at that time. He would also have been in a position to know some personal details like their feelings towards each other.
I'm mostly interested in how this may have related to Edward's character From what we know of their relationship there is a general theme of negativity between the him and Cecily; disapproval and questionable loyalty from her and rebelliousness from him. He certainly showed a weakness women who were several years older than himself. Eleanor Butler, Margaret Lucy, Elizabeth Woodville all fit that type and he married two of them in a rushed and desperate manner. Especially if you consider that the precontract may have occurred before he became King, rather than arrogant young man playing seduction games, was he really looking for the security that he lacked from his mother? Was Cecily kinder to the younger children not just because she saw more of them, but because they didn't remind her of what she later viewed as a sinful fling in her husband's absence? All speculative, but the House of York is a family tragedy and if Warwick and later Clarence were making these allegations, it may be worth considering the wider context.
Nico




On Monday, 1 July 2019, 23:45:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.


Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-02 12:45:07
Doug Stamate
Marie, Thank you for that citation! I can see why, with that ...yesterday being in good health, this night died..., thoughts might turn to poison but, after all, there are poisons administered deliberately to kill someone and poisons taken in unwittingly, such as spoiled meat or contaminated water. However, natural poisons, for want of a better term, produce fairly well-known symptoms and don't act with quite such precipitousness. As far as I know, anyway. One major cause of high blood pressure is over-use of salt, but as the Duke died in January 1476, there went any thoughts about his death being the result of too much salted, dried fish during Lent! Even so, over-use of salt can cause cumulative damage to the heart and arteries, so that possibility still remains. There's also the possibility that his heart suffered from what we'd term a birth defect, either an inherited genetic condition or a one-off condition, that simply didn't show itself until he, literally, dropped dead. Doug Marie wrote: Doug wrote to Hilary, Barring further information, I'm tending towards the possibility that the Duke of Norfolk died of a heart attack brought about by something such as high blood pressure. While symptoms of diseases were often well-known, the causes weren't. So something such as a heart attack brought on by the effects of high blood pressure could easily be described as unexpected or sudden with later hints of poison popping up as an explanation.' Marie butts in: The detail we have about the Duke of Norfolk's death come from the Paston Letters. It's short enough, but makes the suddenness of the event very clear. Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John in London: Like it to you to wete that, not in the most happy season for me, it is so fortuned that, whereas my Lord of Norfolk, yesterday being in good health, this night died about midnight...' (vol 5, p. 245 in Gairdner's edition)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-02 13:16:19
Doug Stamate
Nico, I had to look up sepsis, as I didn't know what it really was or what the symptoms were. One of the symptoms was a fever above 103F or a temperature below 96F and, as the Duke died in January, if sepsis was the cause, it would seem to me that, rather than a fever, he most likely would have had that lowered body temperature  disguised by the weather, perhaps. Nothing I read gave any indication on how fast the disease progressed once symptoms were noticed except to say that if symptoms were present immediate action was necessary. Something the disease might do, I discovered, is produce small blood clots through-out the body; again, there wasn't any information on how quickly those clots could form. The tone of the various articles, however, was again that of a sense of urgency in identifying the disease and beginning treatment. Certainly the latter wouldn't have been available to the Duke even if the former was. I did a quick internet search, but couldn't find anything about the cause of Anne's death. Doug Nico wrote: Hi,I wasn't convinced about the poisoning theory. J-AH didn't present andy solid evidence to back it up. As Doug says, a heart attack was a realistic possibility, as was a stroke/brain hemorrhage. The Duke of Norfolk was only 31, but heart attacks and strokes do affect younger people suddenly, especially if there is a family history of it. If he was asthmatic, it is more likely to have a serious attack at night. You can also die of sepsis very quickly too. Is it known what Anne Mowbray died of? There may have been a genetic disposition to a condition. Given the lack evidence to the contrary, I suspect that both he and Eleanor died of natural causes.

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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-02 13:27:00
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, I have the impression that Warwick wouldn't have been satisfied with a few nice estates, and that may very well have been why his popularity in England suffered. OTOH, Edward, if he wanted to, could be a very good administrator and military leader but, or so it seems to me, tended to hide those competences behind a façade of something on the order of a playboy or, and perhaps better, an all-around hail fellow, well met type (allowing for his position as monarch, of course!). Doug Hilary wrote: Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions. It didn't work and by the time Edward had been moved to Middleham it was easy to let him wander off - er escape.. It would seem that though Warwick was undoubtedly a talented and popular person on the European scene (which is why there is so much in the State Papers about him) he didn't command the same popularity when it came to rivaling Edward at home. He ran into this again during the Readeption when he hadn't the popularity with the London merchants to swing them to a trade agreement with the French. In fact it brought the whole thing down. I still find Warwick an attractive person, though. It's sad how the Yorkists threw so much talent away, whereas the Tudors (after HT) would have calmed them down with a few nice estates.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-02 20:02:38
spoelstral
I don't often post as my knowledge is far inferior to most here, but I had to bring this up:

I've often wondered how many historically suspected "poisoning" deaths were actually caused by anaphylaxis - severe allergic reactions. Although there are far more allergic folks these days (I'm one of them) allergies to bee stings, spider bites, and food allergies such as shellfish, nuts or dairy are not a modern phenomena. The severity of the reaction can increase over time from just a swelling at the exposure site through full-blown anaphylactic shock and death. I know I've gone from just a minor swelling to spider bites as a child to now having itchy skin and welts caused by just brushing against a cobweb, and accidentally getting a shrimp quesadilla at a restaurant instead of the chicken one I ordered caused my lips and throat to swell within minutes after just one bite that I actually spit out (luckily I had liquid medication with me!) Our ancestors would have had no idea that just getting stung by a bee, bitten by a spider, or eating a handful of nuts or a piece of cheese (or even having a single tiny piece of either in another food), - all pretty common and relatively benign things to most people - could actually kill others. An allergic person getting bitten by a spider during the night could go into shock and die with no one noticing until morning and with little physical evidence remaining.

My other question is at what point was appendicitis recognized as a physical condition? It also could be misconstrued as poisoning and can kill quite quickly, although not "overnight" as was the case with Norfolk.

Laura Spoelstra - long-time lurker who is enjoying the education.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 00:03:18
mariewalsh2003

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,


From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

Slurred speech or confusion Extreme shivering or muscle pain Passing no urine (in a day) Severe breathlessness It feels like you're going to die Skin mottled or discoloured (from the Sepsis Trust website). Death can occur quite rapidly once sepsis sets in, but not that fast.
Similarly, with an allergic reaction. I think it's unlikely that the Duke's food would have contained anything he'd not seen many times before, and the reaction would have occurred fairly shortly after eating the offending food, and probably killed quite rapidly if it was going to. Again, it doesn't really fit the idea of his having gone to bed seemingly well, or of dying about midnight. This was dark old January, so people would have been going to bed pretty early. Also, I agree, allergies were very much less common. What is causing the epidemic of allergic reactions now is anybody's guess - it may be a cocktail of novelties we've introduced into our lives. But even if people didn't have a concept of allergies back then, they evidently recognised that the occasional person might not be able to eat certain foods without getting ill - Edward IV successfully appealed for a papal dispensation to eat meat on fast days on the grounds that eating fish made him ill.
I imagine the Duke's death would have been discovered round about 1 am, when his people woke at the end of their first sleep.
I must admit, I'm more inclined towards Doug's original idea of a heart defect. I also once heard of the case of a young woman who died completely unexpectedly in her sleep from a brain haemorrhage. I think it would have to be something sneaky, along those kind of lines.


RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 09:22:48
Hilary Jones
Hi, going back to the poison theories that crop up quite a lot everywhere (and I must admit that like JAH I originally thought of something suspicious when this case came to light) I just don't think we the English,did things that way. That is not until the nineteenth century when people began bumping off their spouses because poison was easier to get.
As you know, I've got a lot of records now, and the most popular way of 'knocking off' your neighbour was to pop round in armour with a couple of blokes and their swords (a la Becket). Sir Robert Mauveysin did that to his neighbour before riding off to Shrewsbury and getting killed there himself. Or therewas the stabbing in the street or, as in one case, the churchyard. And you often got away with it like Ankarette Twynyho's grandfather. Poison was a much more French/Italian thing and often viewed as the weapon of womenor witches, hence the accusations against people like Jacquetta.
I too am with the heart attack theory. My mother's family suffered from vascular disease and she and three of her brothers died in this way - completely suddenly. In her own case she took the dog for a walk one May evening, sat down in the garden and just died in seconds. A nice way to go when you have to. So I think, given that there were no other symptoms noted, that this is probably what happened - like young people who collapse during sport. H

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 00:03:22 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,


From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

Slurred speech or confusion Extreme shivering or muscle pain Passing no urine (in a day) Severe breathlessness It feels like you're going to die Skin mottled or discoloured (from the Sepsis Trust website). Death can occur quite rapidly once sepsis sets in, but not that fast.
Similarly, with an allergic reaction. I think it's unlikely that the Duke's food would have contained anything he'd not seen many times before, and the reaction would have occurred fairly shortly after eating the offending food, and probably killed quite rapidly if it was going to. Again, it doesn't really fit the idea of his having gone to bed seemingly well, or of dying about midnight. This was dark old January, so people would have been going to bed pretty early. Also, I agree, allergies were very much less common. What is causing the epidemic of allergic reactions now is anybody's guess - it may be a cocktail of novelties we've introduced into our lives. But even if people didn't have a concept of allergies back then, they evidently recognised that the occasional person might not be able to eat certain foods without getting ill - Edward IV successfully appealed for a papal dispensation to eat meat on fast days on the grounds that eating fish made him ill.
I imagine the Duke's death would have been discovered round about 1 am, when his people woke at the end of their first sleep.
I must admit, I'm more inclined towards Doug's original idea of a heart defect. I also once heard of the case of a young woman who died completely unexpectedly in her sleep from a brain haemorrhage. I think it would have to be something sneaky, along those kind of lines.


RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 11:10:50
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
If he was well when he went to bed and died suddenly a few hours later, then on balance I think that a heart attack or stroke/brain hemorrhage/aneurysm were the most likely causes of the Duke of Norfolk's death. Poisoning was very unlikely; if it was to do with the precontract, there would have been no point unless the Duchess was also poisoned.
By the way, was there any indication of what Eleanor died of? She wrote her will when she knew she was unwell, but if her death was expected, then the family would have been less likely to go to Burgundy for Margaret's wedding. I don't think it was poison however.
Nico

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 09:22:52 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, going back to the poison theories that crop up quite a lot everywhere (and I must admit that like JAH I originally thought of something suspicious when this case came to light) I just don't think we the English,did things that way. That is not until the nineteenth century when people began bumping off their spouses because poison was easier to get.
As you know, I've got a lot of records now, and the most popular way of 'knocking off' your neighbour was to pop round in armour with a couple of blokes and their swords (a la Becket). Sir Robert Mauveysin did that to his neighbour before riding off to Shrewsbury and getting killed there himself. Or therewas the stabbing in the street or, as in one case, the churchyard. And you often got away with it like Ankarette Twynyho's grandfather. Poison was a much more French/Italian thing and often viewed as the weapon of womenor witches, hence the accusations against people like Jacquetta.
I too am with the heart attack theory. My mother's family suffered from vascular disease and she and three of her brothers died in this way - completely suddenly.. In her own case she took the dog for a walk one May evening, sat down in the garden and just died in seconds. A nice way to go when you have to. So I think, given that there were no other symptoms noted, that this is probably what happened - like young people who collapse during sport. H

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 00:03:22 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,


From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

Slurred speech or confusion Extreme shivering or muscle pain Passing no urine (in a day) Severe breathlessness It feels like you're going to die Skin mottled or discoloured (from the Sepsis Trust website). Death can occur quite rapidly once sepsis sets in, but not that fast.
Similarly, with an allergic reaction. I think it's unlikely that the Duke's food would have contained anything he'd not seen many times before, and the reaction would have occurred fairly shortly after eating the offending food, and probably killed quite rapidly if it was going to. Again, it doesn't really fit the idea of his having gone to bed seemingly well, or of dying about midnight. This was dark old January, so people would have been going to bed pretty early.. Also, I agree, allergies were very much less common. What is causing the epidemic of allergic reactions now is anybody's guess - it may be a cocktail of novelties we've introduced into our lives. But even if people didn't have a concept of allergies back then, they evidently recognised that the occasional person might not be able to eat certain foods without getting ill - Edward IV successfully appealed for a papal dispensation to eat meat on fast days on the grounds that eating fish made him ill.
I imagine the Duke's death would have been discovered round about 1 am, when his people woke at the end of their first sleep.
I must admit, I'm more inclined towards Doug's original idea of a heart defect. I also once heard of the case of a young woman who died completely unexpectedly in her sleep from a brain haemorrhage. I think it would have to be something sneaky, along those kind of lines.


RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie



Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 16:54:16
ricard1an
Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing.
However, I have just read an article in the Dickon Independent, the magazine of the Worcestershire Branch of the R3 Society about a talk on Anne Mowbray given by Bruce Watson at the Society of Antiquaries in February this year and he said that the initial archaeological and scientific investigations had never been completed and and that the findings had never been fully published; several lines of inquiry had been abandoned while others had never been started because there had been a hasty reburial of the re mains only six months after their discovery. Thus many details about Anne Mowbray's life and death remain hidden. Her skull had auburn hair attached and the analysis of the hair revealed amounts of arsenic but the article says that arsenic was used in medicines in her timeand could not bethought to be evidence of poisoning. however her bones showed no evidence of ill health that might have caused her early death.

Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-03 18:02:39
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Hi, I have just managed to catch up on these very interesting conversations. I have never known what to make of Warwick and Clarence's allegations of Edward's bastardy. I always suspected that it may have been a rumour and they never actually said it themselves as it really is a most appalling slur on a respected member of their family. However, the Milanese letter clearly associates the rumours with them. Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story, and he was closely associated with the Neville faction. Whatever grievance they had with Edward, why didn't Warwick or Clarence defend Cecily's honour? Even if true, they had little relevance for Edward beyond embarrassment as he was legally Richard of York's son and his legitimate heir, but it would have been a huge affront to Cecily's honour, so if I find it difficult to understand why she would have any time for Warwick at all, especially it was nothing but slander. It does make me wonder if there is some substance to Michael Jones' theories. I can't imagine Cecily slumming it with an archer, but I don't rule out her having an affair with someone more senior. Possibly it was an open secret that ultimately had a catastrophic impact on the family's psychological balance, which may provide an explanation for Clarence sense of entitlement. Doug here: While the contents of the Milanese Letter definitely have Warwick and Clarence as the rumor-mongers, it's possible they weren't directly involved. Even so, there's no record of either attempting to squelch the rumor, either. Which says to me that there were indeed rumors going around and, even if they weren't responsible, neither Warwick nor Clarence ever denied them. Possible it was thought the rumors were so unbelievable as to not be worth a denial? Another thing to be kept in mind is that we're looking at two different Edwards; one was Edward IV and the other Edward, son of Henry VI. We know there were rumors about the latter's parentage, is it possible the rumors about Edward IV originated simply as a comeback to those? Something on the order of the playground equivalent of Yeah, and so's your mother!? Lacking further information, I'm keeping George in the position of a younger son, not necessarily with a sense of entitlement so much, but rather desperately trying to make his own mark in his family. However, because of just who his family members were, his attempts, rather than simply embarrassing his family, caused major political problems, for them and the country.

Nico concluded:

As for Warwick, there was much to admire, but megalomania seems to have been his weak point, and I suspect that disappointed in not being able to use his role as Kingmaker to control Edward, he saw a more pliable protegee in Clarence. He may have started out hoping to remove the Woodvilles, but once Isabel was married to Clarence any loyalty he once had deserted him....
I tend to agree that the fact that Warwick didn't find the conclusive evidence that he sought suggests that the what he did find indicated some guilt on the Duchess of Bedford's part. Could Warwick have used it to push Edward to annul the EW marriage, or did he know that is was bigamous and there was no marriage to annul? Even if he did, at that point, he may not have cared, because Clarence as King and Isabel as Queen was a much more attractive prospect.

Doug here:

I'm ashamed to admit I'd never even thought of Marie's suggestion that the rumors were Warwick testing the waters for possibly replacing George with Edward! If that was the case, and it makes as more sense than many other ideas, it seems to have been quickly abandoned  if not by George, then by Warwick, anyway. If Warwick was thinking of going after EW's mother, then it looks to me as if his plans were as Marie suggested  to have the Woodville marriage annulled by reason of magic. FWIW, I don't think Warwick ever knew, or suspected, Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal. If he had, why go to the bother of trying to maneuver Edward into asking for an annulment?

I do think the idea of George as king, and Isabel as Queen, undoubtedly appealed to Warwick. Although I don't know if he'd have liked the results had it come about. If Warwick thought Edward was hard to handle...

Doug


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-03 20:00:23
Doug Stamate
Nico, I wonder if part of the problem was simply the way children were raised? I'm referring to children of the nobility here. While they were at home boys would still likely not be in the direct care of their mothers, but rather someone on the order of a nurse/governess, wouldn't they? And then, at 10 or so, they'd be sent away to other nobles' homes for training/schooling. IOW, or so it seems to me anyway, there's a very good chance that the bonds we nowadays accept as automatically arising between parents and children, mainly because of their close association during the child's infancy and childhood, just didn't have the same chances to develop. Sometimes they did, but sometimes they didn't. With the result that, while in letters parents might be addressed as loving or esteemed or some such terms, the actual person being addressed might very well not be loved or esteemed, but was looked on simply as another adult  related by blood perhaps, and requiring a dutiful respect, but still a person who was often a stranger when it came to any actual knowledge about them. Does that make sense? Doug Nico wrote Thanks for clarifying that, Marie. If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable? It does seem such a pointless soap opera accusation and so beneath a man of Warwick's achievement, stature and talent, unless he had evidence that to prove it was true. Unlike Edward V whose illegitimacy, which was based on the invalidity of the marriage of his parents, there was no doubt that Cecily and Richard of York were legally married. Therefore, the presumption of paternity protected Edward's rights as RofY's son, and therefore his right to the throne. Surely Warwick would have been aware of that. Idle gossip about his parentage was legally irrelevant, so to back up his argument Warwick would have to prove that RofY and Cecily were not in the same place during the physically possible timeline for Edward's conception. Michael Jones' theory has some holes in it as it doesn't allow for possibilities where they could have met. However, Warwick may have been aware where RoY was and knew that he hadn't seen Cecily at that time. He would also have been in a position to know some personal details like their feelings towards each other. I'm mostly interested in how this may have related to Edward's character From what we know of their relationship there is a general theme of negativity between the him and Cecily; disapproval and questionable loyalty from her and rebelliousness from him. He certainly showed a weakness women who were several years older than himself. Elean or Butler, Margaret Lucy, Elizabeth Woodville all fit that type and he married two of them in a rushed and desperate manner. Especially if you consider that the precontract may have occurred before he became King, rather than arrogant young man playing seduction games, was he really looking for the security that he lacked from his mother? Was Cecily kinder to the younger children not just because she saw more of them, but because they didn't remind her of what she later viewed as a sinful fling in her husband's absence? All speculative, but the House of York is a family tragedy and if Warwick and later Clarence were making these allegations, it may be worth considering the wider context. Nico
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 23:45:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.

Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?


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

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 20:16:20
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

By the way, was there any indication of what Eleanor died of? She wrote her will when she knew she was unwell, but if her death was expected, then the family would have been less likely to go to Burgundy for Margaret's wedding.


Marie:

I doubt the Duchess of Norfolk had any real choice. Margaret had to have a suitably impressive escort, and if either Edward or Margaret herself wanted the Duchess to go over as one of Margaret's attendants it might not have gone down well if she'd refused.

I wonder whether she tried to object, and that may have prompted Edward to suspect her loyalty and keep tabs on her? So much we'll never know.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-03 20:49:19
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable?


Marie replies:

Depends on your point of view. It is certainly very official - none other than the Act of Attainder that condemned Clarence in 1478.

My own reading is that both Warwick and Clarence were highly narcissistic - which may be what attracted them to each other - and that, once the notion of Edward's bastardy had lodged in Clarence's head he couldn't get it out again; narcissists aren't good at considering other people's feelings, so maybe Clarence really didn't fully grapple with the implications for his mother. I do think that by 1470 he had got himself sold on the idea that he was the rightful king, and that he never really accepted Edward's rule afterwards (this best explains the continued plotting of Isabel's uncles the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Oxford). I suspect the Re-adeption parliament recognised this "revelation" as well, just as the Yorkists refused to acknowledge Edward of Lancaster as Henry's son (in all the legal records he is just described as Margaret's son). This would explain how, as well as why, Clarence was recognised by the Re-adeption parliament as the next royal heir after Edward of Lancaster: you know, the Lancastrian line has ended, the House of York is the next in line, and Clarence is the senior legitimate male of that house.

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-03 21:24:01
Hilary Jones
Just found this Mary. Yahoo had trashed you! Very interesting. I do recall reading somewhere that all hair of the dead turns red? Never been sure about that H
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 17:19:23 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing.


However, I have just read an article in the Dickon Independent, the magazine of the Worcestershire Branch of the R3 Society about a talk on Anne Mowbray given by Bruce Watson at the Society of Antiquaries in February this year and he said that the initial archaeological and scientific investigations had never been completed and and that the findings had never been fully published; several lines of inquiry had been abandoned while others had never been started because there had been a hasty reburial of the re mains only six months after their discovery. Thus many details about Anne Mowbray's life and death remain hidden. Her skull had auburn hair attached and the analysis of the hair revealed amounts of arsenic but the article says that arsenic was used in medicines in her timeand could not bethought to be evidence of poisoning. however her bones showed no evidence of ill health that might have caused her early death.

Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-04 10:34:24
Nicholas Brown
I hadn't heard that about hair turning red after you die, but according to this it is true:
https://www.scienceabc.com/humans/hair-color-after-death-blonde-brunette-eumelanin-pheomelanin.htmlhttps://sciencenotes.org/your-haircolor-changes-after-you-die/
Nico


On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 21:24:07 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Just found this Mary. Yahoo had trashed you! Very interesting. I do recall reading somewhere that all hair of the dead turns red? Never been sure about that H
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 17:19:23 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing.


However, I have just read an article in the Dickon Independent, the magazine of the Worcestershire Branch of the R3 Society about a talk on Anne Mowbray given by Bruce Watson at the Society of Antiquaries in February this year and he said that the initial archaeological and scientific investigations had never been completed and and that the findings had never been fully published; several lines of inquiry had been abandoned while others had never been started because there had been a hasty reburial of the re mains only six months after their discovery. Thus many details about Anne Mowbray's life and death remain hidden. Her skull had auburn hair attached and the analysis of the hair revealed amounts of arsenic but the article says that arsenic was used in medicines in her timeand could not bethought to be evidence of poisoning. however her bones showed no evidence of ill health that might have caused her early death.

Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa

2019-07-04 16:03:18
Doug Stamate
Mary, That was exactly the condition I was thinking of, but didn't know the name! Regardless of whether the condition was inherited or not, a death from cardiomyopathy wouldn't be recognized as anything other than being sudden and unexplained; perfect fodder for rumors to develop. I wonder if the elevated levels of arsenic in Anne's hair may have come from arsenic leaching from pewter utensils? If the Wikipedia article on pewter is accurate, there were at least two grades of pewter during the 15th century; fine metal and trifling metal, with the latter being used for such things as water jugs, while the former was made into plates and goblets. Fine metal was made of tin and copper, trifling metal consisted of fine metal with the addition of about 4% lead. There was even a third grade, ley/lay metal, which contained up to 15% lead. It was only used for decorative items and seemingly wasn't used until the next century. I don't know how much leaching might have occurred from water jugs, but apparently trifling metal was also used for storage jar for other items. I seriously doubt Anne drank much wine, but if she had any served from a pitcher made of pewter, even watered down, she'd still likely ingest a small amount of arsenic leached from the container  not enough to harm her, but enough to show up in modern tests. Doug Mary wrote: Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing. However, I have just read an article in the Dickon Independent, the magazine of the W orcestershire Branch of the R3 Society about a talk on Anne Mowbray given by Bruce Watson at the Society of Antiquaries in February this year and he said that the initial archaeological and scientific investigations had never been completed and and that the findings had never been fully published; several lines of inquiry had been abandoned while others had never been started because there had been a hasty reburial of the re mains only six months after their discovery. Thus many details about Anne Mowbray's life and death remain hidden. Her skull had auburn hair attached and the analysis of the hair revealed amounts of arsenic but the article says that arsenic was used in medicines in her time and could not bethought to be evidence of poisoning. however her bones showed no evidence of ill health that might have caused her early death.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-05 11:07:19
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Even if Warwick and Clarence were not the source of the rumours, doing nothing to stop them was just as bad. Even now, crude remarks about someone's mother are as inflammatory as you can get, but in age when women had to maintain a spotless reputation, is it quite astounding that neither Warwick nor Clarence challenged them. Nevertheless, the fact that Clarence's attainder mentions that he was spreading rumours of Edward's illegitimacy in the 1470s, supports the ambassador's report that Warwick was saying the same thing around 1469. Whatever conflict they may have had with Edward, dragging Cecily through the mud was cruel and unnecessary, but it suggests their intention to use the story to suit their own ends. There had long been rumours about Edward of Westminster, most likely arising from the incompatibility of the parents  not very nice, but at least they weren't coming from Margaret's own family. I never realized that her was referred to as 'Margaret's son' in official documents. I would have thought that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter.

However, while inconclusive there are some circumstantial reasons casting doubt on Henry VI's paternity. Possibly, the fact that Margaret of Anjou had made herself so unpopular played its part, but that should not have been the case with Cecily. The fact that both Warwick and Clarence made use of the illegitimacy story when they could have made their case without it suggests to me that there may have been some truth to it, and that Warwick may have had the evidence to prove it.
I can sympathize with George if he couldn't find his way in a powerful family, but his reaction was extreme. I agree with Marie's assessment of Warwick and Clarence as narcissists, probably even sociopathic. Clarence seems unstable and displayed a strong susceptibility towards delusion. Warwick was controlling and probably thought he could keep Clarence under his thumb, but I think he underestimated how unpredictable he could be if he didn't get his way. Warwick may have been testing the waters by courting Clarence, possibly hoping that he could pull of an annulment for Edward (I don't think he had any idea about the precontract either), but that would have been a dangerous gamble if Edward refused to forgive him. Personally, I think once he had sealed the deal with the Clarence-Isabel marriage, his plans were to be the power behind the throne of King George and Queen Isabella. Somehow, I don't think it would have lasted. In my experience narcissists find it difficult to share or work cooperatively, so it would only have been a matter of time before Clarence turned on Warwick.

Nico
Doug wrote:
Which says to me that there were indeed rumors going around and, even if they weren't responsible, neither Warwick nor Clarence ever denied them. Possible it was thought the rumors were so unbelievable as to not be worth a denial? Another thing to be kept in mind is that we're looking at two different Edwards; one was Edward IV and the other Edward, son of Henry VI. We know there were rumors about the latter's parentage, is it possible the rumors about Edward IV originated simply as a comeback to those? Something on the order of the playground equivalent of Yeah, and so's your mother!? Lacking further information, I'm keeping George in the position of a younger son, not necessarily with a sense of entitlement so much, but rather desperately trying to make his own mark in his family. However, because of just who his family members were, his attempts, rather than simply embarrassing his family, caused major political problems, for them and the country.
I'm ashamed to admit I'd never even thought of Marie's suggestion that the rumors were Warwick testing the waters for possibly replacing George with Edward! If that was the case, and it makes as more sense than many other ideas, it seems to have been quickly abandoned  if not by George, then by Warwick, anyway. If Warwick was thinking of going after EW's mother, then it looks to me as if his plans were as Marie suggested  to have the Woodville marriage annulled by reason of magic. FWIW, I don't think Warwick ever knew, or suspected, Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal. If he had, why go to the bother of trying to maneuver Edward into asking for an annulment?I do think the idea of George as king, and Isabel as Queen, undoubtedly appealed to Warwick. Although I don't know if he'd have liked the results had it come about. If Warwick thought Edward was hard to handle...
Marie wrote:
Depends on your point of view. It is certainly very official - none other than the Act of Attainder that condemned Clarence in 1478.
My own reading is that both Warwick and Clarence were highly narcissistic - which may be what attracted them to each other - and that, once the notion of Edward's bastardy had lodged in Clarence's head he couldn't get it out again; narcissists aren't good at considering other people's feelings, so maybe Clarence really didn't fully grapple with the implications for his mother. I do think that by 1470 he had got himself sold on the idea that he was the rightful king, and that he never really accepted Edward's rule afterwards (this best explains the continued plotting of Isabel's uncles the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Oxford). I suspect the Re-adeption parliament recognised this "revelation" as well, just as the Yorkists refused to acknowledge Edward of Lancaster as Henry's son (in all the legal records he is just described as Margaret's son). This would explain how, as well as why, Clarence was recognised by the Re-adeption parliament as the next royal heir after Edward of Lancaster: you know, the Lancastrian line has ended, the House of York is the next in line, and Clarence is the senior legitimate male of that house.






On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 20:50:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable?


Marie replies:

Depends on your point of view. It is certainly very official - none other than the Act of Attainder that condemned Clarence in 1478.

My own reading is that both Warwick and Clarence were highly narcissistic - which may be what attracted them to each other - and that, once the notion of Edward's bastardy had lodged in Clarence's head he couldn't get it out again; narcissists aren't good at considering other people's feelings, so maybe Clarence really didn't fully grapple with the implications for his mother. I do think that by 1470 he had got himself sold on the idea that he was the rightful king, and that he never really accepted Edward's rule afterwards (this best explains the continued plotting of Isabel's uncles the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Oxford). I suspect the Re-adeption parliament recognised this "revelation" as well, just as the Yorkists refused to acknowledge Edward of Lancaster as Henry's son (in all the legal records he is just described as Margaret's son). This would explain how, as well as why, Clarence was recognised by the Re-adeption parliament as the next royal heir after Edward of Lancaster: you know, the Lancastrian line has ended, the House of York is the next in line, and Clarence is the senior legitimate male of that house.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-05 16:20:10
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

"I never realised that her [sic - Edward of Lancaster] was referred to as Margaret's son in official documents. I would have though that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter."


Marie clarifies:

That was during the Yorkist period only. Pure politics, of course. It meant they didn't acknowledge him as Henry's son but they didn't have to make an actual case for his illegitimacy either.


I think - and have always thought - that the important thing about the story of Edward's bastardy for history in general is not whether it was true but whether it was influential.


The problem has been that viewpoints have been polarised somewhat between those who believe the story but then get hung up on who is now the lawful monarch, and those who disbelieve it and regard the fact that it was not true (and a mean thing to say about a lady) as the end of the matter. The point is that this story, whether true or not (and Livia Fuchs has recently shown that York returned from Rouen much earlier than Michael Jones had thought, which completely undermines the evidence for Edward's bastardy), was made public for a particular purpose, so the main question for an historian, other than a biographer of Cecily Neville of course, ought to be 'Did it influence events?' I would say the answer to that is a definite 'yes'. Not as much as Clarence would have liked, but it caused continuing instability for Edward's kingship until Clarence was finally executed. And it's pretty clear from Mancini and other sources that it was still in people's minds in 1483, and so - although we may not like the fact - may have bolstered public support for deposing Edward V.

Nicholas, I see what you're thinking when you say that, since Clarence was prepared to use such a scandalous claim, perhaps it really was true. I would modify that, though. Clarence certainly wasn't present when his elder brother was conceived, and there were definitely no photographs, so all we can say is maybe he really believed it. Warwick may have made it up and given him a very convincing spiel, or he may have found people who had been in Rouen during the period in question who had some sort of testimony to give, though again it is highly unlikely there were any witnesses to the deed. There is no official record of who the father was supposed to be. The Duke of Burgundy once called him an archer's son, and on another occasion said his real name was Blayborgne. There dcertainly is a rare English surname Blaybourne or Blayburn, but now we have the records of all the soldiers employed in France at that period online, it can be clearly seen that there were no Blayburns amongst them, and certainly none employed as members of the Rouen garrison. So the case against has become somewhat stronger as time has gone on, though of course the Duke of Burgundy may have been simply making up a lowly identity for Edward's supposed father and that wasn't who Warwick and Clarence had in mind at all, if they had anybody in mind.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-06 13:40:35
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:I think - and have always thought - that the important thing about the story of Edward's bastardy for history in general is not whether it was true but whether it was influential.The problem has been that viewpoints have been polarised somewhat between those who believe the story but then get hung up on who is now the lawful monarch, and those who disbelieve it and regard the fact that it was not true (and a mean thing to say about a lady) as the end of the matter. The point is that this story, whether true or not (and Livia Fuchs has recently shown that York returned from Rouen much earlier than Michael Jones had thought, which completely undermines the evidence for Edward's bastardy), was made public for a particular purpose, so the main question for an historian, other than a biographer of Cecily Neville of course, ought to be 'Did it influence events?' I would say the answer to that is a definite 'yes'. Not as much as Clarence would have liked, but it caused continuing instability for Edward's kingship until Clarence was finally executed. And it's pretty clear from Mancini and other sources that it was still in people's minds in 1483, and so - although we may not like the fact - may have bolstered public support for deposing Edward V.

Nicholas, I see what you're thinking when you say that, since Clarence was prepared to use such a scandalous claim, perhaps it really was true. I would modify that, though. Clarence certainly wasn't present when his elder brother was conceived, and there were definitely no photographs, so all we can say is maybe he really believed it. Warwick may have made it up and given him a very convincing spiel, or he may have found people who had been in Rouen during the period in question who had some sort of testimony to give, though again it is highly unlikely there were any witnesses to the deed. There is no official record of who the father was supposed to be. The Duke of Burgundy once called him an archer's son, and on another occasion said his real name was Blayborgne. There dcertainly is a rare English surname Blaybourne or Blayburn, but now we have the records of all the soldiers employed in France at that period online, it can be clearly seen that there were no Blayburns amongst them, and certainly none employed as members of the Rouen garrison. So the case against has become somewhat stronger as time has gone on, though of course the Duke of Burgundy may have been simply making up a lowly identity for Edward's supposed father and that wasn't who Warwick and Clarence had in mind at all, if they had anybody in mind.


I definitely agree with you here. The allegations of Edward's illegitimacy undoubtedly had a destabilizing effect on Edward's reign, and as you say, they may have played a part in the deposing Edward V. Warwick must have been well aware of the potential damage a rumour like that could cause, so that explains his use of a tactic that from a modern perspective comes across as so mean spirited, trashy and rather juvenile. I could see Clarence believing the story if it came from Warwick, either because he was naturally gullible or because his ambitions were so frustrated that he would believe anything that was beneficial to him.
I never found Michael Jones' argument particularly convincing and it certainly wasn't conclusive, nor have I ever taken the Blaybourne story seriously. That one reminds me of the story of John of Gaunt being a butcher's son - more of an attack on status than paternity. If there was any truth in story, I don't think Cecily would have an affair with someone of a low rank. We will never know the truth for certain, but the other dimension of interest is the impact on the York family as a group and the question of understanding the various protagonists as individuals. With the latter, the question of whether the rumours were true or not does reflect on perceptions of their character. For me anyway, it is difficult to muster any sympathy or justification for a smear campaign of that kind. If Warwick deliberately fabricated the story, then it cheapens his reputation. He is well known as a man of some brilliant talents, but egotistical and self centred, but slandering his aunt in that way renders him shameless and dishonourable. It is also impossible not to think less of Clarence for believing and exploiting such a dubious tale about his own mother. Nevertheless, Edward made some serious mistakes in how he dealt with both Warwick and Clarence and their grievances were understandable. If they resurrected an old skeleton from the family closet that was actually true, then it diminishes them less, especially Warwick who I could imagine getting lost in a 'higher purpose' argument.
There was some negativity from critics of Michael Jones who thought that the subject of Edward's legitimacy was completely unworthy of serious consideration. However, I tend to disagree. Despite the insinuations in the Yorkist documents about Edward of Westminster's legitimacy (which may have been correct), I find the lack of condemnation or denial of Warwick's allegations astounding. While there is the idea of not dignifying a story with a reply, there comes a point where when the integrity of an innocent person, as well as the right of someone to hold a particular position demands a response.The only recent equivalent of such a slanderous barrel scraper that I can think of is Trump's nonsense about Obama being born in Africa, which was quickly refuted with a birth certificate. While these allegations are less provable, actually that would be in Cecily's favour, as an outright denial could be taken at face value (now there would be demands for DNA tests). Edward didn't deny them nor did Cecily. I need to read a book about Cecily, and possibly that will answer some of my questions about her especially why she would advocate in Warwick's favour after he betrayed and dethroned Edward corrupting Clarence in the process? That goes way beyond personal insults, and makes me wonder if she was complicit in Warwick and Clarence's rebellion with the objective of her own family being strengthened once the Woodvilles had gone. If Edward was not indeed the biological son of Richard of York, was it an open secret within the family and their immediate circle that eventually preyed on Clarence when he felt sidelined by the Woodvilles and festered even more when he found an ally in Warwick? Early life experience shapes character a great deal, and historical figures are no exception, and some of Edward's behaviour appears consistent with maternal rejection and Clarence's with indulgence. I may change my view on this one when I read more about Cecily as an individual, but for now I lean towards strongly suspecting that illegitimacy allegations were most likely true.

Nico


On Friday, 5 July 2019, 16:26:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

"I never realised that her [sic - Edward of Lancaster] was referred to as Margaret's son in official documents. I would have though that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter."


Marie clarifies:

That was during the Yorkist period only. Pure politics, of course. It meant they didn't acknowledge him as Henry's son but they didn't have to make an actual case for his illegitimacy either.


I think - and have always thought - that the important thing about the story of Edward's bastardy for history in general is not whether it was true but whether it was influential.


The problem has been that viewpoints have been polarised somewhat between those who believe the story but then get hung up on who is now the lawful monarch, and those who disbelieve it and regard the fact that it was not true (and a mean thing to say about a lady) as the end of the matter. The point is that this story, whether true or not (and Livia Fuchs has recently shown that York returned from Rouen much earlier than Michael Jones had thought, which completely undermines the evidence for Edward's bastardy), was made public for a particular purpose, so the main question for an historian, other than a biographer of Cecily Neville of course, ought to be 'Did it influence events?' I would say the answer to that is a definite 'yes'. Not as much as Clarence would have liked, but it caused continuing instability for Edward's kingship until Clarence was finally executed. And it's pretty clear from Mancini and other sources that it was still in people's minds in 1483, and so - although we may not like the fact - may have bolstered public support for deposing Edward V.

Nicholas, I see what you're thinking when you say that, since Clarence was prepared to use such a scandalous claim, perhaps it really was true. I would modify that, though. Clarence certainly wasn't present when his elder brother was conceived, and there were definitely no photographs, so all we can say is maybe he really believed it. Warwick may have made it up and given him a very convincing spiel, or he may have found people who had been in Rouen during the period in question who had some sort of testimony to give, though again it is highly unlikely there were any witnesses to the deed. There is no official record of who the father was supposed to be. The Duke of Burgundy once called him an archer's son, and on another occasion said his real name was Blayborgne. There dcertainly is a rare English surname Blaybourne or Blayburn, but now we have the records of all the soldiers employed in France at that period online, it can be clearly seen that there were no Blayburns amongst them, and certainly none employed as members of the Rouen garrison. So the case against has become somewhat stronger as time has gone on, though of course the Duke of Burgundy may have been simply making up a lowly identity for Edward's supposed father and that wasn't who Warwick and Clarence had in mind at all, if they had anybody in mind.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-07 04:39:48
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nico.

I'm responding to your post about the illegitimacy claim showing Warwick in a very bad and almost childish light it if were true. You are being admirably high-minded, but really by the standards of the day it was really business as usual. The political system was an hereditary monarchy, and some dynastic flaw had to be found in order to get rid of a king. It all started with Henry IV, who had claims put about regarding Richard II's paternity and the legitimacy of his parents' marriage. And in the 1450s the Yorkists encouraged doubts about Edward of Westminster's paternity. By modern standards it's shocking, but the 15th century was a dirty and highly dangerous world where the price of losing in the political game was death, and the destruction of one's family. Could Warwick and Clarence dare rebel against Edward without being prepared to depose him?

Richard was apparently more scrupulous, and prepared to impugn the validity of Edward's marriage and the legitimacy of his children, but not prepared to openly brand his mother as an adulteress (although there do seem to have been people in the capital discussing Edward IV's illegitimacy again in the summer of 1483, and there is one carefully worded allusion in TR to public doubts surrounding Edward's "affiliation" [in its original literal sense of. whose son he was] because of his having been born abroad). The English crown at this period was rather like cursed dragon gold or the Iron Throne - desire of it corrupted hearts and drove men to self destruct.

There's no evidence that Warwick or Clarence were claiming Edward's real father to have been an archer named Blaybourne. Those assertions came from the lips of the Duke of Burgundy, whose motive was indeed to impugn Edward's nobility rather than get him deposed.


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-07 15:52:31
Doug Stamate
Nico, Something had been bothering me about the rumor that Edward IV was illegitimate and after some thought it occurred to me if the rumor about Edward's illegitimacy wasn't tied in some way with Duchess Cecily's remarks, in 1464 I think, about how Edward wasn't his father's son? It's not that I don't think the Duchess didn't say something on that order, but rather that it was taken out of context (Surprise! Surprise!). From what I know of the Duchess' temperament/feelings, for her to declare Edward to not be his father's son because of Edward's foolishness in marrying Elizabeth Woodville, is fully believable. Whether the entire argument was overhead and later reported to unfriendly people, I don't know, but it does appear that at least the phrase not your father's son was reported and later circulated. Now, what if the rumor about Edward's illegitimacy resurfaced basically through the same means? What if Warwick, Clarence, and possibly others, were discussing ways and means of bringing Edward back under Warwick's control and the Duchess' words were remembered? After discussion, the group decides not to use the rumor but, as with the Duchess and Edward, their conversation on the subject, or part of it anyway, had been overheard? It's just the sort of gossip that would spread quickly, even without official sanction or effort. Which is why neither Warwick nor Clarence made any effort to quash the rumor; they hadn't started it and possibly never heard it until it had been circulating for some time. And once the rumor had spread beyond their men, just how was it to be stopped? Any effort on their part to stomp on the rumor would require punishing whoever of their men had started it on its' way, presuming, of course, they could even determine who it was. All this came about because of Marie's remarks about the possibility that Warwick was testing the waters concerning replacing Edward with George because, or so it seems to me, one of the very first things Warwick would do before launching such a campaign would be to see how it went over with his inner circle and the possibility that either snatches of conversation were overheard and repeated elsewhere or someone of those present might have spoken about it somewhere other than at the meeting and been overheard then. As for how the information became known and reported in the letter, I'm presuming the letter was based on several different sources of information; some of which would have been more or less official, while others weren't. Anyway, I thought this idea might be of interest... Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Even if Warwick and Clarence were not the source of the rumours, doing nothing to stop them was just as bad. Even now, crude remarks about someone's mother are as inflammatory as you can get, but in age when women had to maintain a spotless reputation, is it quite astounding that neither Warwick nor Clarence challenged them. Nevertheless, the fact that Clarence's attainder mentions that he was spreading rumours of Edward's illegitimacy in the 1470s, supports the ambassador's report that Warwick was saying the same thing around 1469. Whatever conflict they may have had with Edward, dragging Cecily through the mud was cruel and unnecessary, but it suggests their intention to use the story to suit their own ends. There had long been rumours about Edward of Westminster, most likely arising from the incompatibility of the parents  not very nice, but at least they weren't coming from Margaret's own family. I never realized that her was referred to as 'Margaret's son' in official documents. I would have thought that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter. However, while inconclusive there are some circumstantial reasons casting doubt on Henry VI's paternity. Possibly, the fact that Margaret of Anjou had made herself so unpopular played its part, but that should not have been the case with Cecily. The fact that both Warwick and Clarence made use of the illegitimacy story when they could have made their case without it suggests to me that there may have been some truth to it, and that Warwick may have had the evidence to prove it. I can sympathize with George if he couldn't find his way in a powerful family, but his reaction was extreme. I agree with Marie's assessment of Warwick and Clarence as narcissists, probably even sociopathic. Clarence seems unstable and displayed a strong susceptibility towards delusion. Warwick was controlling and probably thought he could keep Clarence under his thumb, but I think he underestimated how unpredictable he could be if he didn't get his way. Warwick may have been testing the waters by courting Clarence, possibly hoping that he could pull of an annulment for Edward (I don't think he had any idea about the precontract either), but that would have been a dangerous gamble if Edward refused to forgive him. Personally, I think once he had sealed the deal with the Clarence-Isabel marriage, his plans were to be the power behind the throne of King George and Queen Isabella. Somehow, I don't think it would have lasted. In my experience narcissists find it difficult to share or work cooperatively, so it would only have been a matter of time before Clarence turned on Warwick.

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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-08 00:08:46
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote:

Something had been bothering me about the rumor that Edward IV was illegitimate and after some thought it occurred to me if the rumor about Edward's illegitimacy wasn't tied in some way with Duchess Cecily's remarks, in 1464 I think, about how Edward wasn't his father's son?It's not that I don't think the Duchess didn't say something on that order, but rather that it was taken out of context (Surprise! Surprise!). From what I know of the Duchess' temperament/feelings, for her to declare Edward to not be his father's son because of Edward's foolishness in marrying Elizabeth Woodville, is fully believable. Whether the entire argument was overhead and later reported to unfriendly people, I don't know, but it does appear that at least the phrase not your father's son was reported and later circulated.


Marie:

Well, the problem is that we have no source for the incident you have in mind earlier than Mancini, who records a story he picked up in London in 1483 to the effect that the Duchess of York had been so angry at Edward's marriage that she offered to testify to the Council that he was not the Duke of York's son. I suspect some historians have suggested she may have simply said words such as you suggest, and only meant it metaphorically. Alternatively, the whole story may be balderdash. Or it may be completely true. But the fact that we have no strictly contemporary source for the tale, and that it was picked up in the feverish, unstable atmosphere of Edward V's reign, makes it rather suspect. So unfortunately, although it's possible that Cecily said something which fuelled Warwick's claims in 1469 (and this is Mike Jones' argument), nobody recorded anything of that sort at the time.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-08 15:47:42
Doug Stamate
Marie, Oh well, I guess I'll have to file what I thought I knew, under possible, but not supported by evidence! There seems to be lot of that... Doug Marie wrote: Well, the problem is that we have no source for the incident you have in mind earlier than Mancini, who records a story he picked up in London in 1483 to the effect that the Duchess of York had been so angry at Edward's marriage that she offered to testify to the Council that he was not the Duke of York's son. I suspect some historians have suggested she may have simply said words such as you suggest, and only meant it metaphorically. Alternatively, the whole story may be balderdash. Or it may be completely true. But the fact that we no strictly contemporary source for the tale, and that it was picked up in the feverish, unstable atmosphere of Edward V's reign, makes it rather suspect. So unfortunately, although it's possible that Cecily said something which fueled Warwick's claims in 1469 (and this is Mike Jones' argument), nobody recorded anything of that sort at the time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-09 20:44:33
Nicholas Brown

Hi Doug and Marie,
Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you until now,

If Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery.
If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say.

It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.

The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it.

I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable?
Nico






On Monday, 8 July 2019, 15:49:28 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, Oh well, I guess I'll have to file what I thought I knew, under possible, but not supported by evidence! There seems to be lot of that... Doug Marie wrote: Well, the problem is that we have no source for the incident you have in mind earlier than Mancini, who records a story he picked up in London in 1483 to the effect that the Duchess of York had been so angry at Edward's marriage that she offered to testify to the Council that he was not the Duke of York's son. I suspect some historians have suggested she may have simply said words such as you suggest, and only meant it metaphorically. Alternatively, the whole story may be balderdash. Or it may be completely true. But the fact that we no strictly contemporary source for the tale, and that it was picked up in the feverish, unstable atmosphere of Edward V's reign, makes it rather suspect. So unfortunately, although it's possible that Cecily said something which fueled Warwick's claims in 1469 (and this is Mike Jones' argument), nobody recorded anything of that sort at the time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-10 06:31:27
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Hi Doug and Marie, Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you until now, If Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery. Doug here: Apparently the first occasion for which we have record is 1483 (Mancini, I believe?). If the rumor was based on something that occurred shortly after Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, then either it had been floating around in the background, so to speak, for twenty years or else someone may have recollected an argument they'd overheard between the Duchess and Edward. For all we know the rumor Mancini heard may have had a preface on it (something on the order of Remember that story about...) which he simply didn't include. Nico continued: If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say. Doug here: Any rumor about illegitimacy would bound to be quickly related, even if accompanied by a disclaimer about believing it. As there were rumors put out about Edward of Lancaster's legitimacy, it might almost be expected the Lancastrians would try the same trick on the Yorkist heir. The Milanese letter seems to me to be a general summary of information accepted by the writer as genuine, even though the writer obviously was relating events of which he'd received news, and had not actually witnessed any of it. Which means to me that there were rumors and those rumors were at least associated with Warwick and George and that's as far as it's safe to go.
Nico continued: It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it. Doug here: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession. Nico concluded:
I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable? Doug here: Since Warwick died while trying to leave the scene of the battle, I don't see how Duchess Cecily could have even made such a request. What she may have done, or so it seems to me, is express the hope that, should Warwick be caught, Edward wouldn't have him executed on the spot. Further than that, I can't say. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-10 13:05:06
Pamela Bain
I have heard people say that about children, not their father's or mother's child. Meaning the child is not measuring up to the parent. I never thought that equaled illegitimacy.
On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:34 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Hi Doug and Marie, Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you until now, If Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery. Doug here: Apparently the first occasion for which we have record is 1483 (Mancini, I believe?). If the rumor was based on something that occurred shortly after Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, then either it had been floating around in the background, so to speak, for twenty years or else someone may have recollected an argument they'd overheard between the Duchess and Edward. For all we know the rumor Mancini heard may have had a preface on it (something on the order of Remember that story about...) which he simply didn't include. Nico continued: If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say. Doug here: Any rumor about illegitimacy would bound to be quickly related, even if accompanied by a disclaimer about believing it. As there were rumors put out about Edward of Lancaster's legitimacy, it might almost be expected the Lancastrians would try the same trick on the Yorkist heir. The Milanese letter seems to me to be a general summary of information accepted by the writer as genuine, even though the writer obviously was relating events of which he'd received news, and had not actually witnessed any of it. Which means to me that there were rumors and those rumors were at least associated with Warwick and George and that's as far as it's safe to go.
Nico continued: It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it. Doug here: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession. Nico concluded:
I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable? Doug here: Since Warwick died while trying to leave the scene of the battle, I don't see how Duchess Cecily could have even made such a request. What she may have done, or so it seems to me, is express the hope that, should Warwick be caught, Edward wouldn't have him executed on the spot. Further than that, I can't say. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-10 16:27:59
Doug Stamate
Pamela, If Duchess Cecily ever said anything along those lines, I have little doubt that was the context in which it was said. However, when you're trying to come up with a reason to dethrone a king, a charge of illegitimacy, if believed, is fairly good. Apparently, though, the rumor wasn't believed, or not enough anyway so as to provide the basis for dethroning Edward and replacing him with George. So, if violence wasn't to be the first choice for getting rid of Edward, some other pretext had to be found and that pretext was that Edward was illegitimate. It didn't fly and, shortly, violence was resorted to. I think it really comes down to Warwick, having been dumped by Edward, was trying desperately to come up some way, any way, to get back into the position he'd previously held when Edward had left most of the governing of the country to the Earl. I starting reading history for my own enjoyment over fifty years ago and it took some time before I realized the Catch 22 in being a medieval monarch. A king could issue all the decrees he wanted, but without the cooperation of the nobles and, as time passed, the gentry and merchants, nothing much would get done. Therefore, a medieval monarch, in order to be a good ruler, had to be an excellent administrator  and most weren't. Often, however, that lack was made up for by the monarch recognizing his failing and latching onto someone who was a good administrator. In our case, I think what may have happened is that, in the first flush of his becoming king, Edward found Warwick to be just such a person and relied on Warwick to do all the day-to-day things that were so necessary, but which didn't interest Edward. Then Edward married Elizabeth Woodville and, if you'll excuse my saying so, all Hell broke loose. Not only had Edward done this while Warwick was trying to arrange a French marriage for Edward, thus making Warwick look a fool on the international stage, it also demonstrated an independence in Edward that didn't bode well for what I think may have been Warwick's conception of Edward's reign  which was Edward reigning while Warwick did the actual ruling. One of the major points held against Edward's marriage was the promotion it provided for members of his new wife's family. They were appointed this and that, married into the nobility and generally used as the basis for an Edwardian affinity that didn't rely so completely on Warwick. Not only was Warwick being cut out of the governing of the country and made to look a fool internationally, Edward was building up his own party; a party that would only include Warwick if Warwick accepted Edward's terms. Which, seemingly, Warwick had no desire to do. While there was Parliament, its summonings were at the pleasure of the king, so Warwick couldn't just wait for the next election and try and get as many as possible of his supporters elected and face the king down in debates. Any Parliament summoned by Edward would almost certainly result in a majority of members of both Houses supporting Edward, however reluctantly. The Commons because it would be Edward, or Edward's supporters, nominating most of the members and the Lords because Edward was popular enough, except for his marriage. IOW, what we have is basically a power struggle between a king, Edward, and his most powerful subject, Warwick, with the king holding all the cards. Edward's position was for life. While it wasn't safe to ignore public opinion, the opinion of the nobles, gentry and merchants anyway; as long as Edward kept the peace and provided honest administration of the law, he didn't have anything much to worry about. OTOH, if Warwick wanted to return to his previous position of power, there was no way he could force Edward to reinstate him. Ministers to the king served at the king's pleasure and if they lost the king's trust/support, they lost their position and that was that! Doug Pamela wrote: I have heard people say that about children, not their father's or mother's child. Meaning the child is not measuring up to the parent. I never thought that equaled illegitimacy.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-11 21:57:49
Nicholas Brown
Doug wrote: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession.

Doug, I think you are right about Warwick here. The thing that stands out about this era is the lengths some people would go to so that they could maintain their positions of power. I have always seen Hastings as resorting to desperate measures when he knew he was probably on his way out. Warwick may have been similar, but with even more of an ego trip with an element of the end result justifying whatever means he used. He had every right to feel a grievance, as did the other nobles who were pushed out by Woodvilles. It must also have been a genuine blow and a humiliation to spend all that time and energy on a French alliance when it turns out that Edward had been married to Elizabeth Woodville all along. However, a less narcissistic person would probably still have preferred to work with Edward rather than push for regime change.

As you say, Edward was generally competent and that was an obstacle to getting rid of him. Therefore, if the illegitimacy slurs undermined him, then they were something Warwick and Clarence could exploit, even though Cecily's reputation, his own family and countless lives would be collateral damage.

Testing the waters with Clarence does make sense. As I mentioned before, I think Warwick would be enthusiastic because I could imagine him seeing Clarence as easier to manipulate especially after his marriage to Isabel. It was a risk though because others who didn't think Clarence had Edward's capabilities may not have been in a rush to replace him. Clarence was younger and no warrior, so Warwick would have more opportunities to make himself indispensable. If the rumours were part of that strategy, they didn't have the desired effect, so the only he had to resort to open rebellion and the alliance with MofA. Just a thought, but perhaps Cecily was no fan of the Woodvilles so took a pragmatic view and preferred George and Isabel as King and Queen to the Woodville dominance, and thought it worth temporarily sacrificing her reputation to restore the status quo. I will have a look for an account of Cecily and Warwick. If she did plead for his life, then I suspect that may have been the case.
Nico
On Wednesday, 10 July 2019, 16:46:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela, If Duchess Cecily ever said anything along those lines, I have little doubt that was the context in which it was said. However, when you're trying to come up with a reason to dethrone a king, a charge of illegitimacy, if believed, is fairly good. Apparently, though, the rumor wasn't believed, or not enough anyway so as to provide the basis for dethroning Edward and replacing him with George. So, if violence wasn't to be the first choice for getting rid of Edward, some other pretext had to be found and that pretext was that Edward was illegitimate. It didn't fly and, shortly, violence was resorted to. I think it really comes down to Warwick, having been dumped by Edward, was trying desperately to come up some way, any way, to get back into the position he'd previously held when Edward had left most of the governing of the country to the Earl. I starting reading history for my own enjoyment over fifty years ago and it took some time before I realized the Catch 22 in being a medieval monarch. A king could issue all the decrees he wanted, but without the cooperation of the nobles and, as time passed, the gentry and merchants, nothing much would get done. Therefore, a medieval monarch, in order to be a good ruler, had to be an excellent administrator  and most weren't. Often, however, that lack was made up for by the monarch recognizing his failing and latching onto someone who was a good administrator. In our case, I think what may have happened is that, in the first flush of his becoming king, Edward found Warwick to be just such a person and relied on Warwick to do all the day-to-day things that were so necessary, but which didn't interest Edward. Then Edward married Elizabeth Woodville and, if you'll excuse my saying so, all Hell broke loose. Not only had Edward done this while Warwick was trying to arrange a French marriage for Edward, thus making Warwick look a fool on the international stage, it also demonstrated an independence in Edward that didn't bode well for what I think may have been Warwick's conception of Edward's reign  which was Edward reigning while Warwick did the actual ruling. One of the major points held against Edward's marriage was the promotion it provided for members of his new wife's family. They were appointed this and that, married into the nobility and generally used as the basis for an Edwardian affinity that didn't rely so completely on Warwick. Not only was Warwick being cut out of the governing of the country and made to look a fool internationally, Edward was building up his own party; a party that would only include Warwick if Warwick accepted Edward's terms. Which, seemingly, Warwick had no desire to do. While there was Parliament, its summonings were at the pleasure of the king, so Warwick couldn't just wait for the next election and try and get as many as possible of his supporters elected and face the king down in debates. Any Parliament summoned by Edward would almost certainly result in a majority of members of both Houses supporting Edward, however reluctantly. The Commons because it would be Edward, or Edward's supporters, nominating most of the members and the Lords because Edward was popular enough, except for his marriage. IOW, what we have is basically a power struggle between a king, Edward, and his most powerful subject, Warwick, with the king holding all the cards. Edward's position was for life. While it wasn't safe to ignore public opinion, the opinion of the nobles, gentry and merchants anyway; as long as Edward kept the peace and provided honest administration of the law, he didn't have anything much to worry about. OTOH, if Warwick wanted to return to his previous position of power, there was no way he could force Edward to reinstate him. Ministers to the king served at the king's pleasure and if they lost the king's trust/support, they lost their position and that was that! Doug Pamela wrote: I have heard people say that about children, not their father's or mother's child. Meaning the child is not measuring up to the parent. I never thought that equaled illegitimacy.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-12 05:41:45
Doug Stamate
Nico, FWIW, I think the major difference between Warwick and Hastings was that Hastings simply didn't have the power-base Warwick did. Take away his positions as Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint and Hastings would have been left very vulnerable. When Edward IV died, Hastings automatically lost his position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain. Under Edward V, Hastings could look forward to being useful to both sides. Which is why, I think, Hastings retained his positions as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. If Richard got too carried away, then Hastings could side with the Woodville faction in Council meetings; if the Woodvilles got too pushy, Hastings could side with Richard. However, those positions Hasting retained under an Edward V almost certainly wouldn't be retained under a Richard III. I see Hastings as someone willing to cut deals in order to retain what I think he viewed as positions which might literally mean life or death to him. That could, almost certainly would, be done with Edward V on the throne; and almost certainly wouldn't with Richard sitting there in his nephew's place. Warwick, OTOH, regardless of whether or not his was the directing hand, would always have a major influence on what Edward IV did  if he was willing to not be the one in charge. Warwick's affinity was large enough and strong enough on its' own to place him in a position where he could, if he so wished, take an active role in governing the country. But it would require give-and-take in the Council, with Edward's plans/policies usually, but not necessarily always, coming out on top. Apparently that wasn't enough for Warwick. Regarding Duchess Cecily, it does seem to me that we have a complete lack of anything that says how she felt about these events. My understanding is that Warwick was killed as he was trying to flee Barnet, so there's no possibility the Duchess could have begged for his life after that battle. When it comes to her meetings with George prior to his fleeing to France, do we have any record contemporary record of what she actually did or said? Lacking that, it's possible she could have advised George not to marry Isabel; or, at least, to wait a bit while she (the Duchess) tried working on Edward. She could have said Fine, go to it! (or the 15th century version). She may even have tried to get Warwick to not go. While I certainly don't doubt she made her views known, just exactly what those views were seems to be the problem. Doug Nico wrote: Doug wrote: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession. Doug, I think you are right about Warwick here. The thing that stands out about this era is the lengths some people would go to so that they could maintain their positions of power. I have always seen Hastings as resorting to desperate measures when he knew he was probably on his way out. Warwick may have been similar, but with even more of an ego trip with an element of the end result justifying whatever means he used. He had every right to feel a grievance, as did the other nobles who were pushed out by Woodvilles. It must also have been a genuine blow and a humiliation to spend all that time and energy on a French alliance when it turns out that Edward had been married to Elizabeth Woodville all along. However, a less narcissistic person would probably still have preferred to work with Edward rather than push for regime change.
As you say, Edward was generally competent and that was an obstacle to getting rid of him. Therefore, if the illegitimacy slurs undermined him, then they were something Warwick and Clarence could exploit, even though Cecily's reputation, his own family and countless lives would be collateral damage.
Testing the waters with Clarence does make sense. As I mentioned before, I think Warwick would be enthusiastic because I could imagine him seeing Clarence as easier to manipulate especially after his marriage to Isabel. It was a risk though because others who didn't think Clarence had Edward's capabilities may not have been in a rush to replace him. Clarence was younger and no warrior, so Warwick would have more opportunities to make himself indispensable. If the rumours were part of that strategy, they didn't have the desired effect, so the only he had to resort to open rebellion and the alliance with MofA. Just a thought, but perhaps Cecily was no fan of the Woodvilles so took a pragmatic view and preferred George and Isabel as King and Queen to the Woodville dominance, and thought it worth temporarily sacrificing her reputation to restore the status quo. I will have a look for an account of Cecily and Warwick. If she did plead for his life, then I suspect that may have been the case.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-12 22:06:22
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Doug,You are absolutely right about the advantage the Warwick's affinity gave him. Hastings never had any of that leverage, and in 1483 he knew he could lose everything. OTOH, Warwick could always have maintained a significant position with Edward, and if he had been prepared to work with Edward he wasn't in danger of any losses. It is a something of a shame that he couldn't maintain some authority by co-operating with Edward rather than let his ego get the better of him. Perhaps he tried, but Edward wouldn't listen.

As for Cecily, I believe it was Hilary who came up with the reference about Cecily asking Edward to spare Warwick. I haven't seen it myself, and may have got the wrong idea. I haven't found anything specific on it yet.
Nico


On Friday, 12 July 2019, 05:41:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, FWIW, I think the major difference between Warwick and Hastings was that Hastings simply didn't have the power-base Warwick did. Take away his positions as Lord Chamberlain, Captain of Calais, Master of the Mint and Hastings would have been left very vulnerable. When Edward IV died, Hastings automatically lost his position as Edward's Lord Chamberlain. Under Edward V, Hastings could look forward to being useful to both sides. Which is why, I think, Hastings retained his positions as Captain of Calais and Master of the Mint. If Richard got too carried away, then Hastings could side with the Woodville faction in Council meetings; if the Woodvilles got too pushy, Hastings could side with Richard. However, those positions Hasting retained under an Edward V almost certainly wouldn't be retained under a Richard III. I see Hastings as someone willing to cut deals in order to retain what I think he viewed as positions which might literally mean life or death to him. That could, almost certainly would, be done with Edward V on the throne; and almost certainly wouldn't with Richard sitting there in his nephew's place. Warwick, OTOH, regardless of whether or not his was the directing hand, would always have a major influence on what Edward IV did  if he was willing to not be the one in charge. Warwick's affinity was large enough and strong enough on its' own to place him in a position where he could, if he so wished, take an active role in governing the country. But it would require give-and-take in the Council, with Edward's plans/policies usually, but not necessarily always, coming out on top. Apparently that wasn't enough for Warwick. Regarding Duchess Cecily, it does seem to me that we have a complete lack of anything that says how she felt about these events. My understanding is that Warwick was killed as he was trying to flee Barnet, so there's no possibility the Duchess could have begged for his life after that battle. When it comes to her meetings with George prior to his fleeing to France, do we have any record contemporary record of what she actually did or said? Lacking that, it's possible she could have advised George not to marry Isabel; or, at least, to wait a bit while she (the Duchess) tried working on Edward. She could have said Fine, go to it! (or the 15th century version). She may even have tried to get Warwick to not go. While I certainly don't doubt she made her views known, just exactly what those views were seems to be the problem. Doug Nico wrote: Doug wrote: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession. Doug, I think you are right about Warwick here. The thing that stands out about this era is the lengths some people would go to so that they could maintain their positions of power. I have always seen Hastings as resorting to desperate measures when he knew he was probably on his way out. Warwick may have been similar, but with even more of an ego trip with an element of the end result justifying whatever means he used. He had every right to feel a grievance, as did the other nobles who were pushed out by Woodvilles. It must also have been a genuine blow and a humiliation to spend all that time and energy on a French alliance when it turns out that Edward had been married to Elizabeth Woodville all along. However, a less narcissistic person would probably still have preferred to work with Edward rather than push for regime change.
As you say, Edward was generally competent and that was an obstacle to getting rid of him. Therefore, if the illegitimacy slurs undermined him, then they were something Warwick and Clarence could exploit, even though Cecily's reputation, his own family and countless lives would be collateral damage.
Testing the waters with Clarence does make sense. As I mentioned before, I think Warwick would be enthusiastic because I could imagine him seeing Clarence as easier to manipulate especially after his marriage to Isabel. It was a risk though because others who didn't think Clarence had Edward's capabilities may not have been in a rush to replace him. Clarence was younger and no warrior, so Warwick would have more opportunities to make himself indispensable. If the rumours were part of that strategy, they didn't have the desired effect, so the only he had to resort to open rebellion and the alliance with MofA. Just a thought, but perhaps Cecily was no fan of the Woodvilles so took a pragmatic view and preferred George and Isabel as King and Queen to the Woodville dominance, and thought it worth temporarily sacrificing her reputation to restore the status quo. I will have a look for an account of Cecily and Warwick. If she did plead for his life, then I suspect that may have been the case.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-14 16:45:57
Doug Stamate
Nico, I haven't read that much about Richard Neville, but he does come across as a competent administrator and military leader. I really don't know what his personality was like, so it may simply have been a case of him not grasping the fact that Edward was no longer the young son of the Duke of York who'd been sent to Warwick for training? I have little doubt the Edward Warwick knew from those years was much more circumspect and deferential in his dealings with the Earl. George, apparently in order to further his own ambitions, was willing to adopt such an attitude and Edward, at least during the first few years of his reign, seemingly did so to an extent. I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that the split between Edward and Warwick was a clash of personalities more than anything else. The one point on which Warwick did have some support was Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and his promotion of his new in-laws into the nobility and positions of power usually reserved for those nobles. But even what support Warwick did have wasn't enough to get a charge of witchcraft carried against Edward's mother-in-law, possibly for use as the basis for annulling Edward and Elizabeth's marriage. Which left Warwick with two options; he could submit and try and work out some sort of modus operandi with Edward, or he could ally himself with the Lancastrians and try and work out some sort of deal with them. Warwick doesn't seem to have tried the first option; perhaps there was just too much animosity between Edward and him? It would be nice, very nice, to have more first source information on Duchess Cecily; letters, records of conversations, all the things that allow one to make an informed opinion of someone without actually having met them. As far as we know, the Duchess may have been as active as many, including myself at times, believe Margaret Beaufort to have been. Then again, she may have been much more on the side-lines; willing perhaps to offer advice, but not doing all that much. Unfortunately, what we do have is what chroniclers and historians think were the appropriate words and deeds of a noble lady of the late 15th century... Doug Nico wrote: Thanks Doug, You are absolutely right about the advantage the Warwick's affinity gave him. Hastings never had any of that leverage, and in 1483 he knew he could lose everything. OTOH, Warwick could always have maintained a significant position with Edward, and if he had been prepared to work with Edward he wasn't in danger of any losses. It is a something of a shame that he couldn't maintain some authority by co-operating with Edward rather than let his ego get the better of him. Perhaps he tried, but Edward wouldn't listen. As for Cecily, I believe it was Hilary who came up with the reference about Cecily asking Edward to spare Warwick. I haven't seen it myself, and may have got the wrong idea. I haven't found anything specific on it yet.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-16 10:26:00
Hilary Jones
Hi, I'm back! With regard to the relationship between Edward and Warwick and indeed Warwick and George, perhaps we need to leap forward a year to April 1470? Warwick had been forced to flee with his family and George to Calais but Lord Wenlock refused to let him land. There follows the famous scene where Isabel is delivered of a dead child on board ship, Wenlock sends them a barrel of wine in apology, and the whole episode is witnessed by George and thirteen-year old Anne.
The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history.
But I've often wondered why George took this so well, after all Warwick had been setting him up to replace Edward. Now it is believed that Edward was sending messages to him, possibly through a woman spy, but surely that wasn't enough to make George return home to an uncertain future? And he didn't. I did wonder though what made Warwick so drastically change his mind. Yes, he could get financial backing from Louis, but he also knew how slippery Louis was, and he certainly wasn't liked by MOA. Could George possibly have had some sort of breakdown of the type he had when Isabel died and Warwick realised he was not the material to make a king? If that was the case then his only option was this strange alliance or to make peace with Edward.
However, perhaps we should also ask why he didn't (right till the end) sue for peace with Edward. You see I think Edward would have granted it. We talk a lot about Warwick's relationship with Cis, but there's a whole emotional pull as well from the fact that Warwick's father had been ROY's biggest supporter, his mother had been attainted for the Yorkist cause and all the men, as well as Edmund, had died at Wakefield. Edward might have seized a few lands in recompense but I doubt he'd have sent Warwick to the scaffold. It was bad enough having Oxford 'out there'. It's baffling. Warwick knew Louis would view all this as a financial investment - to get French merchants into the Port of London - and he must have known that the Anne marriage apparently not consummated could be annulled. Yet he chose to follow a very uncertain path; and he was by no means a stupid man. H
BTW one does wonder whether Anne's experience off Calais might have made her very wary of childbirth - hence only one child? H
On Sunday, 14 July 2019, 16:46:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Nico, I haven't read that much about Richard Neville, but he does come across as a competent administrator and military leader. I really don't know what his personality was like, so it may simply have been a case of him not grasping the fact that Edward was no longer the young son of the Duke of York who'd been sent to Warwick for training? I have little doubt the Edward Warwick knew from those years was much more circumspect and deferential in his dealings with the Earl. George, apparently in order to further his own ambitions, was willing to adopt such an attitude and Edward, at least during the first few years of his reign, seemingly did so to an extent. I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that the split between Edward and Warwick was a clash of personalities more than anything else. The one point on which Warwick did have some support was Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and his promotion of his new in-laws into the nobility and positions of power usually reserved for those nobles. But even what support Warwick did have wasn't enough to get a charge of witchcraft carried against Edward's mother-in-law, possibly for use as the basis for annulling Edward and Elizabeth's marriage. Which left Warwick with two options; he could submit and try and work out some sort of modus operandi with Edward, or he could ally himself with the Lancastrians and try and work out some sort of deal with them. Warwick doesn't seem to have tried the first option; perhaps there was just too much animosity between Edward and him? It would be nice, very nice, to have more first source information on Duchess Cecily; letters, records of conversations, all the things that allow one to make an informed opinion of someone without actually having met them. As far as we know, the Duchess may have been as active as many, including myself at times, believe Margaret Beaufort to have been. Then again, she may have been much more on the side-lines; willing perhaps to offer advice, but not doing all that much. Unfortunately, what we do have is what chroniclers and historians think were the appropriate words and deeds of a noble lady of the late 15th century... Doug Nico wrote: Thanks Doug, You are absolutely right about the advantage the Warwick's affinity gave him. Hastings never had any of that leverage, and in 1483 he knew he could lose everything. OTOH, Warwick could always have maintained a significant position with Edward, and if he had been prepared to work with Edward he wasn't in danger of any losses. It is a something of a shame that he couldn't maintain some authority by co-operating with Edward rather than let his ego get the better of him. Perhaps he tried, but Edward wouldn't listen. As for Cecily, I believe it was Hilary who came up with the reference about Cecily asking Edward to spare Warwick. I haven't seen it myself, and may have got the wrong idea. I haven't found anything specific on it yet.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-16 10:39:09
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
Warwick certainly was an exceptional military leader and it was a shame that Edward treated him with so little respect because he would have been an asset to him as an able administrator. I think you are right that it came down to a personality clash, possibility with it s origins in Warwick taking over too much, because he had been responsible for Edward's education and training as well as the friendship with Richard of York. As a result, Edward had every right to feel patronized and treated like a child, but he reacted in an immature way with his marriage to EW and his relationship with the Woodvilles. Warwick had been used to being in command, so it is understandable that deference to a former pupil would be a difficult adjustment, especially when Edward's conquest had been so sudden. Until Wakefield Warwick could reasonably have expected to serve Richard of York for years. Part of the problem, I believe was with Warwick's personality. A more sensitive person would have been aware of the changes that they needed to make, but in other areas you can see where Warwick had a tendency to just bulldoze ahead, regardless of how it affected anyone else as can be seen with the tragedy of Isabel and Clarence's baby on the ship to Calais.

As for Cecily, I need to know a bit more about her, so I have reserved J-AH's book on her at the library. Hopefully, that many give some insight into the family dynamic with Warwick.
Nico
On Sunday, 14 July 2019, 16:46:08 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, I haven't read that much about Richard Neville, but he does come across as a competent administrator and military leader. I really don't know what his personality was like, so it may simply have been a case of him not grasping the fact that Edward was no longer the young son of the Duke of York who'd been sent to Warwick for training? I have little doubt the Edward Warwick knew from those years was much more circumspect and deferential in his dealings with the Earl. George, apparently in order to further his own ambitions, was willing to adopt such an attitude and Edward, at least during the first few years of his reign, seemingly did so to an extent. I get the impression, possibly mistaken, that the split between Edward and Warwick was a clash of personalities more than anything else. The one point on which Warwick did have some support was Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and his promotion of his new in-laws into the nobility and positions of power usually reserved for those nobles. But even what support Warwick did have wasn't enough to get a charge of witchcraft carried against Edward's mother-in-law, possibly for use as the basis for annulling Edward and Elizabeth's marriage. Which left Warwick with two options; he could submit and try and work out some sort of modus operandi with Edward, or he could ally himself with the Lancastrians and try and work out some sort of deal with them. Warwick doesn't seem to have tried the first option; perhaps there was just too much animosity between Edward and him? It would be nice, very nice, to have more first source information on Duchess Cecily; letters, records of conversations, all the things that allow one to make an informed opinion of someone without actually having met them. As far as we know, the Duchess may have been as active as many, including myself at times, believe Margaret Beaufort to have been. Then again, she may have been much more on the side-lines; willing perhaps to offer advice, but not doing all that much. Unfortunately, what we do have is what chroniclers and historians think were the appropriate words and deeds of a noble lady of the late 15th century... Doug Nico wrote: Thanks Doug, You are absolutely right about the advantage the Warwick's affinity gave him. Hastings never had any of that leverage, and in 1483 he knew he could lose everything. OTOH, Warwick could always have maintained a significant position with Edward, and if he had been prepared to work with Edward he wasn't in danger of any losses. It is a something of a shame that he couldn't maintain some authority by co-operating with Edward rather than let his ego get the better of him. Perhaps he tried, but Edward wouldn't listen. As for Cecily, I believe it was Hilary who came up with the reference about Cecily asking Edward to spare Warwick. I haven't seen it myself, and may have got the wrong idea. I haven't found anything specific on it yet.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-16 15:53:24
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi, I'm back! With regard to the relationship between Edward and Warwick and indeed Warwick and George, perhaps we need to leap forward a year to April 1470? Warwick had been forced to flee with his family and George to Calais but Lord Wenlock refused to let him land. There follows the famous scene where Isabel is delivered of a dead child on board ship, Wenlock sends them a barrel of wine in apology, and the whole episode is witnessed by George and thirteen-year old Anne. The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history. Doug here: What do you think of the idea that, once he felt he was forced to flee England, Warwick decided then to cut his ties to Edward and any of his supporters? And any of Edward's family, for that matter? Whatever caused the split between Edward and Warwick, only part of which was I think due to Edward's marriage, the split was so deep and final that, if Warwick wanted to be anything in the governing of England, his only option was to replace Edward. Warwick first turned to George, seeing if allegations of Edward's illegitimacy allied to the dislike of Edward's marriage might be enough to replace Edward with George, but that didn't pan out. Which left Warwick with two options; he could retire to his manors and hope that Edward screwed things up so badly that he'd have to take Warwick back  on Warwick's terms, of course. Or the Earl could switch sides and ally himself with the Lancastrians. Something I do find interesting is that Warwick, as far as we know, never tried to claim the throne for himself, even though his claim was as good as Tudor's  descent via the Beauforts. So Warwick leaves England and immediately begins demonstrating what an asset he'd be to Margaret of Anjou and, most importantly, her husband Henry VI. His actions against the Burgundian merchants, as you say, endeared him to Louis, who then began working on Margaret to effect that (in)famous reconciliation. I do admit to wondering how Warwick thought he was going to manage Henry VI as long as Margaret of Anjou was around, but it may have been simply a matter of anger on Warwick's part. He'd show Edward just who was the better manipulator! Hilary continued: But I've often wondered why George took this so well, after all Warwick had been setting him up to replace Edward. Now it is believed that Edward was sending messages to him, possibly through a woman spy, but surely that wasn't enough to make George return home to an uncertain future? And he didn't. I did wonder though what made Warwick so drastically change his mind. Yes, he could get financial backing from Louis, but he also knew how slippery Louis was, and he certainly wasn't liked by MOA. Could George possibly have had some sort of breakdown of the type he had when Isabel died and Warwick realised he was not the material to make a king? If that was the case then his only option was this strange alliance or to make peace with Edward. Doug here: Could Warwick's changed attitude to George been due to Warwick recognizing that, even with his all-out support, he (Warwick) couldn't force George onto the country? And if he couldn't replace Edward with George, then George was of no use to him and, in fact, might even be a hindrance? Louis' aim, or so it seems to me, was to broker a deal that would make possible Henry's return to the throne, but in such a weakened state that France would have little to worry about regarding any future English attacks on France. Louis recognized that as long as the Yorkists remained united, they would come out on top and be a potential threat to France (and Louis' intentions to bring Brittany and Burgundy under French control). Only if the Yorkists were divided, for whatever reason/s, could the Lancastrians return and only if the Yorkists remained divided could the Lancastrians remain in power. Which was happened in 1470-71 and again during 1483-85. That, or so I think, was Louis' aim  to divide the Yorkists and do all in his power to keep them in that state. Hilary concluded: However, perhaps we should also ask why he didn't (right till the end) sue for peace with Edward. You see I think Edward would have granted it. We talk a lot about Warwick's relationship with Cis, but there's a whole emotional pull as well from the fact that Warwick's father had been ROY's biggest supporter, his mother had been attainted for the Yorkist cause and all the men, as well as Edmund, had died at Wakefield. Edward might have seized a few lands in recompense but I doubt he'd have sent Warwick to the scaffold. It was bad enough having Oxford 'out there'. It's baffling. Warwick knew Louis would view all this as a financial investment - to get French merchants into the Port of London - and he must have known that the Anne marriage apparently not consummated could be annulled. Yet he chose to follow a very uncertain path; and he was by no means a stupid man. H BTW one does wonder whether Anne's experience off Calais might have made her very wary of childbirth - hence only one child? H Doug here: You used the word baffling and it does seem to be that! Which is why I fall back onto the idea that there was some sort of deep personal animosity between the two? I certainly don't think Edward's marriage was the only thing on which the two disagreed, but even so, one would think they'd be able to patch things up; if only for their own self-preservation! I tend to agree with you that, had Warwick survived Barnet, Edward probably wouldn't have executed him. I say probably because it would have depended on whether or not Warwick could have accepted Edward's primacy  and I'm not certain about that. As for Anne only having one child; well, her mother only had two who survived. I couldn't find out whether there'd been any miscarriages. And while Isabel had four pregnancies, only two children survived. So what happened at Calais certainly could have caused Anne to view having children as something that could be extremely dangerous. Doug Who hopes you had a very nice holiday (or vacation, as we say over here)!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-17 22:37:49
mariewalsh2003
Nico wrote (some time ago):-f Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery.
Marie (finally back):Mancini probably spoke no English at all, so whoever he had the story from had probably given it to him in Latin.
Nico wrote:If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say.
Marie replies:The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.

Nico:It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
Marie:You're right; it's appalling. But people like that don't see other folks' reality.

Nico wrote:The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it.
Marie replies:I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Nico wrote:I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable
Marie:I've never heard of that, and I don't see that it can be right since Warwick was killed on the field, not captured and brought back for trial. Are you perhaps thinking of her alleged plea for Clarence to be executed privately?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-18 10:05:50
Hilary Jones
Marie, the last bit about the pardon was from me.
According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.
I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
PS I just noticed that John Talbot was rumoured to be going to link up with Warwick and Clarence during the Welles episode, and had to deny it.
On Wednesday, 17 July 2019, 22:50:50 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote (some time ago):-f Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery.
Marie (finally back):Mancini probably spoke no English at all, so whoever he had the story from had probably given it to him in Latin.
Nico wrote:If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say.
Marie replies:The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.

Nico:It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
Marie:You're right; it's appalling. But people like that don't see other folks' reality.

Nico wrote:The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it.
Marie replies:I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Nico wrote:I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable
Marie:I've never heard of that, and I don't see that it can be right since Warwick was killed on the field, not captured and brought back for trial. Are you perhaps thinking of her alleged plea for Clarence to be executed privately?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-18 15:36:36
Doug Stamate
Nico, If we go by the dynamics of 15th century politics, it was Warwick, not Edward who caused the problems. Edward was king and it behooved those who said they supported him to carry out his wishes to the best of their abilities. Now, we do know talks were initiated for a foreign marriage for Edward and that Warwick supported those talks. We also can presume that Edward knew of those talks; he'd have to sign (or tell someone to sign) the introductory documents. What we don't know is whether Warwick over-stepped any verbal instructions or understandings Edward may have given to Warwick or thought he had with the Earl. Warwick seems to have been set on a French-oriented policy when it came to a bride for Edward, but we don't know if that was Edward's actual preference. For example, England still claimed the French throne and (usually) supported Brittany and Burgundy in their attempts to stay free of direct French control. What would a French marriage say to the Bretons and Burgundians? Especially those Bretons and Burgundians charged with foreign policy? Richard II's first wife was Anne of Bohemia. The little French princess who was Richard's second wife was just part of an over-all treaty, one clause of which aimed at increasing the size of English-ruled Aquitane (didn't happen, BTW). Edward III's wife was Phillipa of Hainault, a County in the Holy Roman Empire, but situated on France's northern border. Nowadays, part of it, including Valenciennes, is in France, while the rest, including Mons, is in Belgium. If we look at the Lancastrian monarchs, Henry IV's first wife was Mary de Bohun, who died before Henry took the throne and Henry later married Joanna of Navarre, the widow of the Duke of Brittany. Henry V, as we know married Katherine of Valois, while the only child of that union married Margaret of Anjou. If the English were going to maintain their claim on the French throne, it was obvious they'd need allies, something a French marriage wouldn't provided. OTOH, if the English were to abandon their claim on the French throne, even without announcing it, then a marriage to a French princess, or a relative of the French royal family, would be an excellent choice. Perhaps Edward and Warwick disagreed on the over-all foreign policy represented by Edward's marriage to a foreigner? How Warwick accepted Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, or rather didn't, may very well simply been because Edward's and Warwick's conceptions of English foreign policy were diametricaly opposed. From what we know happened, it appears that Warwick never accepted that marriage and I wonder if it was his refusal to do so that caused not only a breakdown in his relations with Edward, but also prevented any sort of reconciliation? Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, Warwick certainly was an exceptional military leader and it was a shame that Edward treated him with so little respect because he would have been an asset to him as an able administrator. I think you are right that it came down to a personality clash, possibility with it s origins in Warwick taking over too much, because he had been responsible for Edward's education and training as well as the friendship with Richard of York. As a result, Edward had every right to feel patronized and treated like a child, but he reacted in an immature way with his marriage to EW and his relationship with the Woodvilles. Warwick had been used to being in command, so it is understandable that deference to a former pupil would be a difficult adjustment, especially when Edward's conquest had been so sudden. Until Wakefield Warwick could reasonably have expected to serve Richard of York for years. Part of the problem, I believe was with Warwick's personality. A more sensitive person would have been aware of the changes that they needed to make, but in other areas you can see where Warwick had a tendency to just bulldoze ahead, regardless of how it affected anyone else as can be seen with the tragedy of Isabel and Clarence's baby on the ship to Calais. As for Cecily, I need to know a bit more about her, so I have reserved J-AH's book on her at the library. Hopefully, that many give some insight into the family dynamic with Warwick.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-18 21:27:41
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-19 13:40:53
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:27:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-19 18:48:47
Nicholas Brown

Hi,

Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care.

Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.

Nico



Marie: The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Hilary: The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history.

Doug: If we go by the dynamics of 15th century politics, it was Warwick, not Edward who caused the problems. Edward was king and it behooved those who said they supported him to carry out his wishes to the best of their abilities. Now, we do know talks were initiated for a foreign marriage for Edward and that Warwick supported those talks. We also can presume that Edward knew of those talks; he'd have to sign (or tell someone to sign) the introductory documents. What we don't know is whether Warwick over-stepped any verbal instructions or understandings Edward may have given to Warwick or thought he had with the Earl. Warwick seems to have been set on a French-oriented policy when it came to a bride for Edward, but we don't know if that was Edward's actual preference..How Warwick accepted Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, or rather didn't, may very well simply been because Edward's and Warwick's conceptions of English foreign policy were diametricaly opposed. From what we know happened, it appears that Warwick never accepted that marriage and I wonder if it was his refusal to do so that caused not only a breakdown in his relations with Edward, but also prevented any sort of reconciliation?
On Friday, 19 July 2019, 13:43:37 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:27:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-19 22:03:06
mariewalsh2003
Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H



Marie replies:


There is an early 19C English translation of the French version in this volume of Archaeologia:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y7k4AQAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PR2


Livia Visser-Fuchs also published a transcript and translation of the French version in Nottingham Medieval Studies (vol 36, 1992); the title is 'Edward IV's Memoir on Paper to Charles, Duke of Burgundy'.


Though I have to admit I'm not sure if these are the self-same French versions. I cant recall the details regarding extant copies of the Arrivall, I'm afraid.


I'm pretty sure there is no suggestion in any version of the Arrivall that I have seen that Cis was pleading for Warwick. She was said to have been working on Clarence to come back to the fold, granted. That would have been do-able as Clarence was in England and Edward had already sent him an offer of reconciliation before his flight into exile, but for Cis to have tried to bring Warwick into it would surely have involved her in strenuous secret lobbying on his behalf with Edward overseas.

I'm afraid to have to say I feel this is probably one of those tricks of the memory, in which Cis's efforts to reconcile Edward and Clarence, and Clarence's efforts to reconcile Edward and Warwick, have become amalgamated.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-20 09:35:00
Hilary Jones
Could well have been a trick of memory Marie. The English version I've looked at is by Bruce. It seems to substitute Beaumont for Exeter and it has both brothers going to reconcile with Clarence, not just Richard.
Thanks for the links. I've also found a Thomson short version but that doesn't help. Thanks again. H
On Friday, 19 July 2019, 22:05:09 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H



Marie replies:


There is an early 19C English translation of the French version in this volume of Archaeologia:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y7k4AQAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PR2


Livia Visser-Fuchs also published a transcript and translation of the French version in Nottingham Medieval Studies (vol 36, 1992); the title is 'Edward IV's Memoir on Paper to Charles, Duke of Burgundy'.


Though I have to admit I'm not sure if these are the self-same French versions. I cant recall the details regarding extant copies of the Arrivall, I'm afraid.


I'm pretty sure there is no suggestion in any version of the Arrivall that I have seen that Cis was pleading for Warwick. She was said to have been working on Clarence to come back to the fold, granted. That would have been do-able as Clarence was in England and Edward had already sent him an offer of reconciliation before his flight into exile, but for Cis to have tried to bring Warwick into it would surely have involved her in strenuous secret lobbying on his behalf with Edward overseas.

I'm afraid to have to say I feel this is probably one of those tricks of the memory, in which Cis's efforts to reconcile Edward and Clarence, and Clarence's efforts to reconcile Edward and Warwick, have become amalgamated.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-20 10:13:47
Hilary Jones
Nico I keep forgetting to add that perhaps a lot of George's ambition was fueled by his birth in Dublin and the adoration of the Irish. Given his relationship with Ireland he was bound to have picked up the story about how his father and mother were treated as king and queen of Ireland, and he was the brand new prince born there. It was I suppose the equivalent of being unofficially anointed Prince of Ireland instead of Prince of Wales.
I would have thought that anything like that would convince him that he was special, and that perhaps the wrong person was king? H On Friday, 19 July 2019, 18:53:50 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,

Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care.

Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.

Nico



Marie: The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Hilary: The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history.

Doug: If we go by the dynamics of 15th century politics, it was Warwick, not Edward who caused the problems. Edward was king and it behooved those who said they supported him to carry out his wishes to the best of their abilities. Now, we do know talks were initiated for a foreign marriage for Edward and that Warwick supported those talks. We also can presume that Edward knew of those talks; he'd have to sign (or tell someone to sign) the introductory documents. What we don't know is whether Warwick over-stepped any verbal instructions or understandings Edward may have given to Warwick or thought he had with the Earl. Warwick seems to have been set on a French-oriented policy when it came to a bride for Edward, but we don't know if that was Edward's actual preference..How Warwick accepted Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, or rather didn't, may very well simply been because Edward's and Warwick's conceptions of English foreign policy were diametricaly opposed. From what we know happened, it appears that Warwick never accepted that marriage and I wonder if it was his refusal to do so that caused not only a breakdown in his relations with Edward, but also prevented any sort of reconciliation?
On Friday, 19 July 2019, 13:43:37 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:27:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall.. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-20 10:22:11
Hilary Jones
You make some good points as always Doug. Strangely enough I spent my 'vacation' on a busman's holiday (is that an English term?) chateau-gazing in the Loire with a granddaughter who's deep into 'castles'. And what you see everywhere, on the fireplaces, on the ceilings, on the doors are intertwined initials and symbols of kings and their spouses. So you have the salamander of Louis XII with the ermine of Brittany. That's what marriage was all about as we've said before - pedigree, having as many 'grand champions' in your wife's background as you could get.
That's why Edward's marriage was viewed throughout Europe as unbelievable. Where was EW's salamander, ermine, or in the case of Catherine of Aragon, pomegranate? And, as you say, where was the strategy? I can actually see a motive for a French or rather French/Savoyard marriage. This is less than ten year's after the end of the Hundred Years' War - it would give France (and England) a chance to recover. I think we see from 1475 that Edward never really saw himself as another Henry V and I doubt whether Charlotte or Bona would have that much influence on their husbands anyway. Kings just didn't marry for love, a marriage was a foreign treaty.
Going on to Nico's post this morning about Warwick, I think, like a lot of celebrities nowadays, he had fallen in love with fame to the extent that he really believed he could achieve that which could not be achieved. It's clear from the Milan papers that he was famous throughout Europe - people were more interested in what he was doing than what twenty year-old Edward was doing. His first jolt must have been when, after capturing Edward after Edgcote, he had to let him go. Edward had now become the popular one. Secondly, Warwick was a northerner. We know the people of Warwickshire didn't like him replacing the Beauchamps and in 1471 he bumped into the same problem in London when he was trying to sell Louis's trade deal. It ended the Readeption. Like HT years' later by 1471 he was in the last chance saloon; if he took a pardon he would be humiliated, at least if he fought he'd go out with a bang.
I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 15:39:38 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, If we go by the dynamics of 15th century politics, it was Warwick, not Edward who caused the problems. Edward was king and it behooved those who said they supported him to carry out his wishes to the best of their abilities. Now, we do know talks were initiated for a foreign marriage for Edward and that Warwick supported those talks. We also can presume that Edward knew of those talks; he'd have to sign (or tell someone to sign) the introductory documents. What we don't know is whether Warwick over-stepped any verbal instructions or understandings Edward may have given to Warwick or thought he had with the Earl. Warwick seems to have been set on a French-oriented policy when it came to a bride for Edward, but we don't know if that was Edward's actual preference. For example, England still claimed the French throne and (usually) supported Brittany and Burgundy in their attempts to stay free of direct French control. What would a French marriage say to the Bretons and Burgundians? Especially those Bretons and Burgundians charged with foreign policy? Richard II's first wife was Anne of Bohemia. The little French princess who was Richard's second wife was just part of an over-all treaty, one clause of which aimed at increasing the size of English-ruled Aquitane (didn't happen, BTW). Edward III's wife was Phillipa of Hainault, a County in the Holy Roman Empire, but situated on France's northern border. Nowadays, part of it, including Valenciennes, is in France, while the rest, including Mons, is in Belgium. If we look at the Lancastrian monarchs, Henry IV's first wife was Mary de Bohun, who died before Henry took the throne and Henry later married Joanna of Navarre, the widow of the Duke of Brittany. Henry V, as we know married Katherine of Valois, while the only child of that union married Margaret of Anjou. If the English were going to maintain their claim on the French throne, it was obvious they'd need allies, something a French marriage wouldn't provided. OTOH, if the English were to abandon their claim on the French throne, even without announcing it, then a marriage to a French princess, or a relative of the French royal family, would be an excellent choice. Perhaps Edward and Warwick disagreed on the over-all foreign policy represented by Edward's marriage to a foreigner? How Warwick accepted Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, or rather didn't, may very well simply been because Edward's and Warwick's conceptions of English foreign policy were diametricaly opposed. From what we know happened, it appears that Warwick never accepted that marriage and I wonder if it was his refusal to do so that caused not only a breakdown in his relations with Edward, but also prevented any sort of reconciliation? Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, Warwick certainly was an exceptional military leader and it was a shame that Edward treated him with so little respect because he would have been an asset to him as an able administrator. I think you are right that it came down to a personality clash, possibility with it s origins in Warwick taking over too much, because he had been responsible for Edward's education and training as well as the friendship with Richard of York. As a result, Edward had every right to feel patronized and treated like a child, but he reacted in an immature way with his marriage to EW and his relationship with the Woodvilles. Warwick had been used to being in command, so it is understandable that deference to a former pupil would be a difficult adjustment, especially when Edward's conquest had been so sudden. Until Wakefield Warwick could reasonably have expected to serve Richard of York for years. Part of the problem, I believe was with Warwick's personality. A more sensitive person would have been aware of the changes that they needed to make, but in other areas you can see where Warwick had a tendency to just bulldoze ahead, regardless of how it affected anyone else as can be seen with the tragedy of Isabel and Clarence's baby on the ship to Calais. As for Cecily, I need to know a bit more about her, so I have reserved J-AH's book on her at the library. Hopefully, that many give some insight into the family dynamic with Warwick.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-21 15:59:04
Doug Stamate
Nico, You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else. Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity.. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care. Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-22 15:11:05
Nicholas Brown


Hi,
Hilary and Doug, I think that your assessment of Warwick is very insightful. He must have been very charismatic, but all too often those are the people who also have a high degree of narcissism and selfishness. Despite his alliance with Richard of
York, if events hadn't gone Warwick's way, I don't think he could have counted on his loyalty either. In my experience, extremely self absorbed people are often the last to notice fortunes wheel turning away from their interests and take it very hard when things don't go their way. He probably thought that keeping Edward captive and accusing Jacquetta of witchcraft would be an easy way to achieve his own agenda. When that didn't happen the result of his thwarted rage was rebellion, because of course he knew best and it wouldn't occur to him that it could ever be any other way.
For all his faults, I also would give him credit where it was due. He did train Richard and Edward well, although Richard's character seems the stronger of the two. For all his accomplishment, it would be nice to find something to good to say about him personally. He was probably charming and generous when it suited him, so likeable if you didn't get on the wrong side of him. Nevertheless, even if your hubris gets the better of you, there is no need to be tacky and a bully by slandering your aunt.

As for Clarence, I find it interesting that he was the only one of RofY's sons who hadn't trained in Warwick's household. Perhaps he had been earmarked for the clergy as a younger son, or could their have been something unsuitable about him even back then? If Clarence was treated as little prince in Ireland at such a impressionable age, that could have had an impact on a naturally self centered child. Add a few slights and he was on his way to exploiting it in later life.
Nico

Hilary: Nico I keep forgetting to add that perhaps a lot of George's ambition was fueled by his birth in Dublin and the adoration of the Irish. Given his relationship with Ireland he was bound to have picked up the story about how his father and mother were treated as king and queen of Ireland, and he was the brand new prince born there. It was I suppose the equivalent of being unofficially anointed Prince of Ireland instead of Prince of Wales.
I would have thought that anything like that would convince him that he was special, and that perhaps the wrong person was king?
Going on to Nico's post this morning about Warwick, I think, like a lot of celebrities nowadays, he had fallen in love with fame to the extent that he really believed he could achieve that which could not be achieved. It's clear from the Milan papers that he was famous throughout Europe - people were more interested in what he was doing than what twenty year-old Edward was doing. His first jolt must have been when, after capturing Edward after Edgcote, he had to let him go. Edward had now become the popular one. Secondly, Warwick was a northerner. We know the people of Warwickshire didn't like him replacing the Beauchamps and in 1471 he bumped into the same problem in London when he was trying to sell Louis's trade deal. It ended the Readeption. Like HT years' later by 1471 he was in the last chance saloon; if he took a pardon he would be humiliated, at least if he fought he'd go out with a bang..
I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Doug: You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else.

On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:59:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else. Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity.. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care. Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-23 14:58:40
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: You make some good points as always Doug. Strangely enough I spent my 'vacation' on a busman's holiday (is that an English term?) chateau-gazing in the Loire with a granddaughter who's deep into 'castles'. And what you see everywhere, on the fireplaces, on the ceilings, on the doors are intertwined initials and symbols of kings and their spouses. So you have the salamander of Louis XII with the ermine of Brittany. That's what marriage was all about as we've said before - pedigree, having as many 'grand champions' in your wife's background as you could get. That's why Edward's marriage was viewed throughout Europe as unbelievable. Where was EW's salamander, ermine, or in the case of Catherine of Aragon, pomegranate? And, as you say, where was the strategy? I can actually see a motive for a French or rather French/Savoyard marriage. This is less than ten year's after the end of the Hundred Years' War - it would give France (and England) a chance to recover. I think we see from 1475 that Edward never really saw himself as another Henry V and I doubt whether Charlotte or Bona would have that much influence on their husbands anyway. Kings just didn't marry for love, a marriage was a foreign treaty. Doug here: Conversely, rather than a French/Savoyard marriage, one with someone from Brittany or Burgundy could also provide greater influence in foreign affairs. However, AFAIK, there weren't any available/suitable marriage partners from either duchy. So, unless one's aim was to provide a sort of breathing spell after the Hundred Years' War (which would benefit France as much if not more so than England), then from where was Edward to get a suitable foreign bride? Another problem would be that, by marrying someone who met Louis' approval, could also be interpreted as Louis having some sort of authority over English foreign policy. Something, regardless of one's over-all aims for peace and amity between the two countries, to be avoided. I have the impression, not verifiable though, that Edward simply wasn't that much in favor of Warwick's foreign policy plans, including a French marriage, well before he ever met Elizabeth Woodville and that one reason, not the first or most important though, that Edward married Elizabeth was that it was Edward's way of ensuring that the plans Warwick had were scuttled. Hilary continued: Going on to Nico's post this morning about Warwick, I think, like a lot of celebrities nowadays, he had fallen in love with fame to the extent that he really believed he could achieve that which could not be achieved. It's clear from the Milan papers that he was famous throughout Europe - people were more interested in what he was doing than what twenty year-old Edward was doing. His first jolt must have been when, after capturing Edward after Edgcote, he had to let him go. Edward had now become the popular one. Secondly, Warwick was a northerner. We know the people of Warwickshire didn't like him replacing the Beauchamps and in 1471 he bumped into the same problem in London when he was trying to sell Louis's trade deal. It ended the Readeption. Like HT years' later by 1471 he was in the last chance saloon; if he took a pardon he would be humiliated, at least if he fought he'd go out with a bang. Doug here: I know I've written it before, but I do have a very hard time trying to put myself into other people's shoes, especially when we lack personal data such as letters, etc. Lacking those, I do agree Warwick seems to have succumbed to his own reputation and just wasn't equipped, mentally and emotionally, to act in a subordinate position. Perhaps he was always like that, but until the death of Richard of York placed someone younger than himself in a position over him, it hadn't mattered that much? Hilary concluded: I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time. Doug here: I wonder if you're not giving Warwick too much credit when it comes to developing Richard's character? Wasn't George also under Warwick's care? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-23 20:02:24
mariewalsh2003

Nicholas wrote:

Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care.


Marie answers:

I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).

I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.


He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.


I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.


We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.





Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-23 20:18:21
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.


Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 09:55:37
Hilary Jones
I would add to all this, which I agree with, the fact that we mustn't forget the Warwick story began way before 1460. He was part of a triumvirate (ROY, his father and himself) which were intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne. Edward was still an Earl, a boy. After 1460 he was the only one of them left. Had ROY or his father survived he might have behaved with more restraint towards the now-grown Edward. And he was also the product of an equally ambitious mother, a baroness in her own right, and had a wife who was also one of the top landowners. He had an impeccable pedigree!
He was what I'd call (and he himself would call) a 'lucky' person. As Marie says, they exist in the workplace and in politics today. They take risks which are more audacious than most would indulge in, and when they're successful they think they are 'blessed', infallible, yes lucky. That draws others to them. All is well until one of these audacious acts fails - for the first time. They are so egotistical that they go into a downward spiral making further catastrophic decisions. But because they're egotistical they totally ignore the people they take down with them. In modern life they often go sick or retire leaving someone else to pick up the debris. Warwick couldn't do that. Neither could he stop the spiral because his own self-importance blinded him to his errors of judgement; the key one being the alliance with MOA who never liked or trusted him.
There is one thing again though. At least unlike Rivers, the other 'Renaissance man' he did actually do something and do it well. That is until it all went wrong. H

On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:03:04 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care.


Marie answers:

I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).

I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.


He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.


I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.


We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.





Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 10:11:03
Hilary Jones
Nico, did you ever do one of your charts on Anne? She is another person I find it hard to really get a view of. Not helped of course by the fact that she was only queen for two years - and that awful Hicks biography.
I downloaded the new one on Henry VI and was a bit disappointed. It's very readable, but I would say for the novice. In terms of detail it's no Ross, Hicks (at his best) or Penn, perhaps because as Penn and JAH discovered, a whole 'life' is too big; better to examine in shorter bits and in greater depth. But then I expect people who dig like us are in a minority. H
On Monday, 22 July 2019, 15:23:50 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:



Hi,
Hilary and Doug, I think that your assessment of Warwick is very insightful. He must have been very charismatic, but all too often those are the people who also have a high degree of narcissism and selfishness. Despite his alliance with Richard of
York, if events hadn't gone Warwick's way, I don't think he could have counted on his loyalty either. In my experience, extremely self absorbed people are often the last to notice fortunes wheel turning away from their interests and take it very hard when things don't go their way. He probably thought that keeping Edward captive and accusing Jacquetta of witchcraft would be an easy way to achieve his own agenda. When that didn't happen the result of his thwarted rage was rebellion, because of course he knew best and it wouldn't occur to him that it could ever be any other way.
For all his faults, I also would give him credit where it was due. He did train Richard and Edward well, although Richard's character seems the stronger of the two. For all his accomplishment, it would be nice to find something to good to say about him personally. He was probably charming and generous when it suited him, so likeable if you didn't get on the wrong side of him. Nevertheless, even if your hubris gets the better of you, there is no need to be tacky and a bully by slandering your aunt.

As for Clarence, I find it interesting that he was the only one of RofY's sons who hadn't trained in Warwick's household. Perhaps he had been earmarked for the clergy as a younger son, or could their have been something unsuitable about him even back then? If Clarence was treated as little prince in Ireland at such a impressionable age, that could have had an impact on a naturally self centered child. Add a few slights and he was on his way to exploiting it in later life.
Nico

Hilary: Nico I keep forgetting to add that perhaps a lot of George's ambition was fueled by his birth in Dublin and the adoration of the Irish. Given his relationship with Ireland he was bound to have picked up the story about how his father and mother were treated as king and queen of Ireland, and he was the brand new prince born there. It was I suppose the equivalent of being unofficially anointed Prince of Ireland instead of Prince of Wales.
I would have thought that anything like that would convince him that he was special, and that perhaps the wrong person was king?
Going on to Nico's post this morning about Warwick, I think, like a lot of celebrities nowadays, he had fallen in love with fame to the extent that he really believed he could achieve that which could not be achieved. It's clear from the Milan papers that he was famous throughout Europe - people were more interested in what he was doing than what twenty year-old Edward was doing. His first jolt must have been when, after capturing Edward after Edgcote, he had to let him go. Edward had now become the popular one. Secondly, Warwick was a northerner. We know the people of Warwickshire didn't like him replacing the Beauchamps and in 1471 he bumped into the same problem in London when he was trying to sell Louis's trade deal. It ended the Readeption. Like HT years' later by 1471 he was in the last chance saloon; if he took a pardon he would be humiliated, at least if he fought he'd go out with a bang..
I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Doug: You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else.

On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:59:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else. Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity.. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care. Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 10:24:57
Hilary Jones
Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.


Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 13:06:57
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Thanks Marie for more insights on Warwick's personality. The incidents that you describe certainly show his amorality and narcissism, something that appears to be the underlying factor with so many populist politicians, and there are a lot of these 'pseudo men of the people' in the news these days. A egotistical personality at the outset coupled with a lack of challenges in early life (often with considerable success) is a cocktail that contributes a great deal to developing this personality type. Another characteristic is that they are energized by people in general thinking highly of them, but have little capacity for inner life or ability to relate to people close to them. I would say Warwick fits those characteristics. We have seen his lack of regard for his family's welfare.
I also agree with you that Edward handled Warwick extremely badly. I have thought about the possibility that he had always found Warwick overbearing and rebelled as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Warwick and other nobles had every right to be offended by the uncontrolled Woodvilles' avarice and self promotion, and the way things were going with the marriages of EW's sisters, he may have even been concerned about Anne and Isabel being pushed into marrying one of the Woodville brothers. For all his faults, Warwick had made an enormous contribution and deserved more respect, but I would put this mistake down to his youth and immaturity when he became King. I don't dislike Edward either; he had many good qualities and despite being charismatic, unlike Warwick, I don't think he fits into the narcissist category.
Nico
Marie wrote:I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 10:25:03 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.


Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 13:20:55
Nicholas Brown
Hilary wrote: Nico, did you ever do one of your charts on Anne? She is another person I find it hard to really get a view of.. Not helped of course by the fact that she was only queen for two years - and that awful Hicks biography.I downloaded the new one on Henry VI and was a bit disappointed. It's very readable, but I would say for the novice. In terms of detail it's no Ross, Hicks (at his best) or Penn, perhaps because as Penn and JAH discovered, a whole 'life' is too big; better to examine in shorter bits and in greater depth. But then I expect people who dig like us are in a minority.
Hi Hilary,
Interesting that you ask. I was looking at Anne and Isabel's charts, along with Richard Clarence, Warwick and Anne Beauchamp. Anne is a difficult character to pin down as there is so little contemporary material to work with. I don't have a birth time for either her or Isabel, so I am experimenting with possible times and I will come back to you on this.
The Henry VI book is still on my to read list but that is a bit of a shame; I was hoping for a real in depth look at him. Even so, I think you are right that most people don't like to dig as much as we do.
Nico


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 13:05:45 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi,
Thanks Marie for more insights on Warwick's personality. The incidents that you describe certainly show his amorality and narcissism, something that appears to be the underlying factor with so many populist politicians, and there are a lot of these 'pseudo men of the people' in the news these days. A egotistical personality at the outset coupled with a lack of challenges in early life (often with considerable success) is a cocktail that contributes a great deal to developing this personality type. Another characteristic is that they are energized by people in general thinking highly of them, but have little capacity for inner life or ability to relate to people close to them. I would say Warwick fits those characteristics. We have seen his lack of regard for his family's welfare.
I also agree with you that Edward handled Warwick extremely badly. I have thought about the possibility that he had always found Warwick overbearing and rebelled as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Warwick and other nobles had every right to be offended by the uncontrolled Woodvilles' avarice and self promotion, and the way things were going with the marriages of EW's sisters, he may have even been concerned about Anne and Isabel being pushed into marrying one of the Woodville brothers. For all his faults, Warwick had made an enormous contribution and deserved more respect, but I would put this mistake down to his youth and immaturity when he became King. I don't dislike Edward either; he had many good qualities and despite being charismatic, unlike Warwick, I don't think he fits into the narcissist category.
Nico
Marie wrote:I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 10:25:03 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.


Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-24 14:11:34
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:I would add to all this, which I agree with, the fact that we mustn't forget the Warwick story began way before 1460. He was part of a triumvirate (ROY, his father and himself) which were intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne. Edward was still an Earl, a boy. After 1460 he was the only one of them left. Had ROY or his father survived he might have behaved with more restraint towards the now-grown Edward. And he was also the product of an equally ambitious mother, a baroness in her own right, and had a wife who was also one of the top landowners. He had an impeccable pedigree!
Marie writes:I don't believe that York, Salisbury and Warwick were all intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne for years before 1461. Far from it. York did not even attempt to claim the throne until 1460, and when he did Salisbury and Warwick did not approve. Had they approved, and thrown their weight behind York's bid for kingship, perhaps Henry might have been deposed at that point. In fact, even Edward seems to have been shocked. It was only Warwick's defeat at 2nd St. Albans, and his loss of King Henry's person, that made claiming the throne the only possible avenue left for Edward, and for Warwick, who could expect no mercy from Queen Margaret. I honestly think Warwick's ego would have been more comfortable parading rag doll Henry round the streets like a circus animal, with all the admiring eyes on himself, than as supporter to an amazingly tall, handsome and charismatic young man like Edward.
HilaryHe was what I'd call (and he himself would call) a 'lucky' person. As Marie says, they exist in the workplace and in politics today. They take risks which are more audacious than most would indulge in, and when they're successful they think they are 'blessed', infallible, yes lucky. That draws others to them. All is well until one of these audacious acts fails - for the first time. They are so egotistical that they go into a downward spiral making further catastrophic decisions. But because they're egotistical they totally ignore the people they take down with them. In modern life they often go sick or retire leaving someone else to pick up the debris. Warwick couldn't do that. Neither could he stop the spiral because his own self-importance blinded him to his errors of judgement; the key one being the alliance with MOA who never liked or trusted him.
Marie writes:Maybe that is a slightly different type (some of them possible cocaine-fuelled?), and maybe what they end up with is clinical depression. (Or perhaps some of them were actually sick or depressed all along, which is why they weren't coping.) I can't see really narcissistic types opting for early retirement or sick leave, because they can't live without the oxygen of constant adulation. The genuine articles, like Warwick, have personas that are so armour-plated as to be impervious to reality. If things go wrong, they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other.
I don't think Warwick had a choice about his reconciliation with Queen Margaret, though. He couldn't get into Calais. There was a Burgundian fleet as well as Edward after him, and Louis wouldn't settle for anything less because he adored both his Lancastrian relatives and Warwick, and for him it was a match made in heaven (in fact, he even asked for divine assistance with the project, and promised to make a particular pilgrimage if it came off, which he duly did). The deal was not made overnight. Warwick wasn't at all confident about it. He didn't even trust Queen Margaret to let Anne's marriage to Prince Edward go ahead, and did his best to have it happen ahead of the dispensation before he left for England. Queen Margaret, on the other hand, didn't trust Warwick to put her husband back on the throne, and wouldn't allow the marriage to take place until that had happened (and even then she went on prevaricating). The only person really happy was Louis. All the French sources tell the same story, which is really quite a surprising slant on a character (Louis) who normally comes across as pragmatic to a fault.
Hilary wrote:
There is one thing again though. At least unlike Rivers, the other 'Renaissance man' he did actually do something and do it well. That is until it all went wrong.
Marie:Indeed. I know not everyone agrees, but for my money Rivers didn't do an awful lot of any practical use, considering his position. Repulsing Fauconberg was probably his best effort. A bit of a poser, and probably not a terribly nice one to judge by the Dymmok papers.I think we're likely to find a lot of narcissism in 15th century high places because the highly stratified society meant that the members of the top nobility were treated as a completely higher form of animal life. It takes a strong individual to not let that sort of treatment go to their head.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-25 08:53:22
Hilary Jones
Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 13:23:27 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Nico, did you ever do one of your charts on Anne? She is another person I find it hard to really get a view of.. Not helped of course by the fact that she was only queen for two years - and that awful Hicks biography.I downloaded the new one on Henry VI and was a bit disappointed. It's very readable, but I would say for the novice. In terms of detail it's no Ross, Hicks (at his best) or Penn, perhaps because as Penn and JAH discovered, a whole 'life' is too big; better to examine in shorter bits and in greater depth. But then I expect people who dig like us are in a minority.
Hi Hilary,
Interesting that you ask. I was looking at Anne and Isabel's charts, along with Richard Clarence, Warwick and Anne Beauchamp. Anne is a difficult character to pin down as there is so little contemporary material to work with. I don't have a birth time for either her or Isabel, so I am experimenting with possible times and I will come back to you on this.
The Henry VI book is still on my to read list but that is a bit of a shame; I was hoping for a real in depth look at him. Even so, I think you are right that most people don't like to dig as much as we do.
Nico


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 13:05:45 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi,
Thanks Marie for more insights on Warwick's personality. The incidents that you describe certainly show his amorality and narcissism, something that appears to be the underlying factor with so many populist politicians, and there are a lot of these 'pseudo men of the people' in the news these days. A egotistical personality at the outset coupled with a lack of challenges in early life (often with considerable success) is a cocktail that contributes a great deal to developing this personality type. Another characteristic is that they are energized by people in general thinking highly of them, but have little capacity for inner life or ability to relate to people close to them. I would say Warwick fits those characteristics. We have seen his lack of regard for his family's welfare.
I also agree with you that Edward handled Warwick extremely badly. I have thought about the possibility that he had always found Warwick overbearing and rebelled as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Warwick and other nobles had every right to be offended by the uncontrolled Woodvilles' avarice and self promotion, and the way things were going with the marriages of EW's sisters, he may have even been concerned about Anne and Isabel being pushed into marrying one of the Woodville brothers. For all his faults, Warwick had made an enormous contribution and deserved more respect, but I would put this mistake down to his youth and immaturity when he became King. I don't dislike Edward either; he had many good qualities and despite being charismatic, unlike Warwick, I don't think he fits into the narcissist category.
Nico
Marie wrote:I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 10:25:03 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.


Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-25 12:35:22
mariewalsh2003

Hi Nicholas,
Would you consider Wolffe's biography of Henry VI? Not new but very well researched and there are copies on Amazon from £7-something.
Also, I think you mentioned getting JAH's biography of Cecily Neville. Again, the real expert on Cecily is Joanna Laynesmith, who has been researching her since her MA days. Her biography of Cis is now out in paperback - I know the hardback version was a ludicrous price thanks to the publishers, and the paperback is still £25, but perhaps you could borrow from a library.
Marie





Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-25 13:56:45
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary and Marie for the book recommendations. I just found that there is a library copy of Wolffe's Henry VI. It looks like an updated version of the one that was on my university reading list back in the 80s, but definitely worth a review. It is also good news that the paperback version of Joanna Laynesmith's book about Cecily is out.
It is always a let down when an author can't relate to their subject; however well written it is there is always something missing.As for Henry VI's health, whatever happened to him doesn't sound like schizophrenia, which tends to show up by around 25. He was in his mid 30s, and the sudden onset sounds physical, like a brain infection or possibly a stroke. Someone writing a book about him should ask a doctor what might be a better fit.
Nico

On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 12:35:28 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hi Nicholas,
Would you consider Wolffe's biography of Henry VI? Not new but very well researched and there are copies on Amazon from £7-something.
Also, I think you mentioned getting JAH's biography of Cecily Neville. Again, the real expert on Cecily is Joanna Laynesmith, who has been researching her since her MA days. Her biography of Cis is now out in paperback - I know the hardback version was a ludicrous price thanks to the publishers, and the paperback is still £25, but perhaps you could borrow from a library.
Marie





Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H

Re: Egos

2019-07-27 15:45:19
Doug Stamate
Marie, Sorry for taking so long to post this, but it took a while before I realized what it was I wanted to say. In a post you made on 7/24/19 in reply to Hilary, your wrote in your last paragraph: I think we're likely to find a lot of narcissism in 15th century high places because the highly stratified society meant that the members of the top nobility were treated as a completely higher form of animal life. It takes a strong individual to not let that sort of treatment go to their head. and I wanted to say I think that may be extremely valuable in trying to understand the people involved as, say, reading their diaries might be. If we posit that Warwick, and George, succumbed to the idea that they were somehow special because of their treatment, then their actions in trying to gain power, and retain it in Warwick's case, are much more understandable. It's not as if either Warwick or George were fighting gain/retain power for some great political end; their goal was solely to attain power. Warwick, or so it seems to me, tended to view everyone, solely through a prism of how that person would help Warwick get what he wanted. George, not so much, but that may simply have been due to George not being as accomplished as Warwick and not having Warwick's resources. Edward seems to have succumbed to this idea; at least early in his reign, and continued to do so when it came to his more personal relationships with women. However, he does seem to have not automatically presumed that opposition to a particular policy of his was a sign of actual disloyalty. Richard, OTOH, seems to have recognized that there was indeed a difference between himself, Richard Plantagenet, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester. In the latter persona he was the brother of the King, a Duke and, in fact if not name, Viceroy of the North. In the former, he was a human being, imperfect and capable of error and, most importantly, both aspects were part of one person. I don't think either Warwick or George ever realized they might, just might you understand, be wrong about something. Edward appears to have been willing to, if not admit he was wrong, at least accept that he couldn't have everything he wanted. I've changed the title for this post so as not to have it mixed in with other, less speculative ones. Doug Who also wonders if he's not completely off the rails on this...

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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-29 12:11:40
Hilary Jones
Marie, Doug, Nico before I reply to this, with all the talk of politicians I just have to report on the 'member of the public' who last night said he liked Boris Johnson because he was 'cheerful like Henry V'! Henry V, who sacked towns and sent Lollards back to the fire. Oh dear we should expect some fun then :) :)
.Marie wrote:I don't believe that York, Salisbury and Warwick were all intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne for years before 1461. Far from it. York did not even attempt to claim the throne until 1460, and when he did Salisbury and Warwick did not approve. Had they approved, and thrown their weight behind York's bid for kingship, perhaps Henry might have been deposed at that point. In fact, even Edward seems to have been shocked. It was only Warwick's defeat at 2nd St. Albans, and his loss of King Henry's person, that made claiming the throne the only possible avenue left for Edward, and for Warwick, who could expect no mercy from Queen Margaret.
I must admit I got the impression that from the time ROY went to Ireland in the 1440s he was already disgruntled and acting like 'king of Ireland'. I also recall Warwick helped him then via his seafaring skills? It was in an Irish document which I uploaded whilst you were away some time ago. Johnson, in her book which I'll write further about in another post, says that when he returned in 1450, there were at least two groups of rebels setting him up as an alternative king. She has his first encounter with Salisbury and Warwick at Dartford, where they were acting as envoys for Henry.
Certainly by the late 1450s Alice Montagu was conspiring with William Oldhall, Vaughan and Philip Malpas - hence her attainder. Oldhall, as you know, was ROY's 'henchman' and had to take sanctuary in St Martin's from whence he was ejected and then returned at the insistence of Henry. Interestingly this was only a couple of years' before Stillington was given the St Martin's job. I wonder if Henry intentionally put him there? Whatever the reality, Warwick would certainly believe that he and his family had done more than enough to prop up ROY at the appropriate time, and hence prop up Edward.
Incidentally, Johnson is not sympathetic to ROY; she sees him as an arrogant debtor (even though he did disprove the debt claims). The whole issue seems to have arisen out of the jostling for power in France after the death of Bedford. Because Henry was too young to go there, and later chose not to, there was no-one to control the likes of Suffolk, Somerset and ROY, all who seem to have believed that they had been sold down the line by each other. I think the only person she does admire is MOA, and that seems to be warranted.
Marie wroteMaybe that is a slightly different type (some of them possible cocaine-fuelled?), and maybe what they end up with is clinical depression. (Or perhaps some of them were actually sick or depressed all along, which is why they weren't coping.) I can't see really narcissistic types opting for early retirement or sick leave, because they can't live without the oxygen of constant adulation. The genuine articles, like Warwick, have personas that are so armour-plated as to be impervious to reality. If things go wrong, they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other.
Speaking from my own experience Marie, I think it is when narcissists are at the top but meet external criticism they did not envisage. Most people take a few knocks on the road to the top (even Edward), but the occasional one sails through, achieving unusual success at a young age. I think until Warwick made the misjudgment of arresting Edward he had always sailed through. And when he realised that just wasn't going to work and he wasn't as respected and adored by the country as Edward his reaction was to basically flail around and let himself be manipulated by Louis, who was as much as anything interested in a good economic investment for French trade. And the spiral went downwards and downwards. In the modern day scenario I knew, my 'Warwick' met extensive criticism from the national media, something his adoring 'henchmen' could only attempt to rescue him from. Like Warwick he flailed, the hurt was too much, only used to praise and success. And in modern terms it was easier to do a deal (just like Warwick) which led to the end of the job.
Johnson devotes a lot of time to the Louis/Warwick deal. Certainly the only person who really wanted it was Louis. MOA, quite rightly, didn't trust Warwick an inch and Warwick knew that. There was always the prospect that, once Warwick had helped out, MOA would 'defect' again to Oxford and Somerset her long-term allies, and ditch the whole marriage arrangement by means of an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation. I do think that very likely. And George just gets forgotten (though he was named as next heir if Anne had no children).
Finally, re Rivers, I recall he pulled out of the Fauconberg chaise at the last minute to go on pilgrimage and Richard had to go (Ross)?
Very sorry this is all so late and so long. H
On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 14:11:39 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:I would add to all this, which I agree with, the fact that we mustn't forget the Warwick story began way before 1460. He was part of a triumvirate (ROY, his father and himself) which were intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne. Edward was still an Earl, a boy. After 1460 he was the only one of them left. Had ROY or his father survived he might have behaved with more restraint towards the now-grown Edward. And he was also the product of an equally ambitious mother, a baroness in her own right, and had a wife who was also one of the top landowners. He had an impeccable pedigree!
Marie writes:I don't believe that York, Salisbury and Warwick were all intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne for years before 1461. Far from it. York did not even attempt to claim the throne until 1460, and when he did Salisbury and Warwick did not approve. Had they approved, and thrown their weight behind York's bid for kingship, perhaps Henry might have been deposed at that point. In fact, even Edward seems to have been shocked. It was only Warwick's defeat at 2nd St. Albans, and his loss of King Henry's person, that made claiming the throne the only possible avenue left for Edward, and for Warwick, who could expect no mercy from Queen Margaret. I honestly think Warwick's ego would have been more comfortable parading rag doll Henry round the streets like a circus animal, with all the admiring eyes on himself, than as supporter to an amazingly tall, handsome and charismatic young man like Edward.
HilaryHe was what I'd call (and he himself would call) a 'lucky' person. As Marie says, they exist in the workplace and in politics today. They take risks which are more audacious than most would indulge in, and when they're successful they think they are 'blessed', infallible, yes lucky. That draws others to them. All is well until one of these audacious acts fails - for the first time. They are so egotistical that they go into a downward spiral making further catastrophic decisions. But because they're egotistical they totally ignore the people they take down with them. In modern life they often go sick or retire leaving someone else to pick up the debris. Warwick couldn't do that. Neither could he stop the spiral because his own self-importance blinded him to his errors of judgement; the key one being the alliance with MOA who never liked or trusted him.
Marie writes:Maybe that is a slightly different type (some of them possible cocaine-fuelled?), and maybe what they end up with is clinical depression. (Or perhaps some of them were actually sick or depressed all along, which is why they weren't coping.) I can't see really narcissistic types opting for early retirement or sick leave, because they can't live without the oxygen of constant adulation. The genuine articles, like Warwick, have personas that are so armour-plated as to be impervious to reality. If things go wrong, they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other.
I don't think Warwick had a choice about his reconciliation with Queen Margaret, though. He couldn't get into Calais. There was a Burgundian fleet as well as Edward after him, and Louis wouldn't settle for anything less because he adored both his Lancastrian relatives and Warwick, and for him it was a match made in heaven (in fact, he even asked for divine assistance with the project, and promised to make a particular pilgrimage if it came off, which he duly did). The deal was not made overnight. Warwick wasn't at all confident about it. He didn't even trust Queen Margaret to let Anne's marriage to Prince Edward go ahead, and did his best to have it happen ahead of the dispensation before he left for England. Queen Margaret, on the other hand, didn't trust Warwick to put her husband back on the throne, and wouldn't allow the marriage to take place until that had happened (and even then she went on prevaricating). The only person really happy was Louis. All the French sources tell the same story, which is really quite a surprising slant on a character (Louis) who normally comes across as pragmatic to a fault.
Hilary wrote:
There is one thing again though. At least unlike Rivers, the other 'Renaissance man' he did actually do something and do it well. That is until it all went wrong.
Marie:Indeed. I know not everyone agrees, but for my money Rivers didn't do an awful lot of any practical use, considering his position. Repulsing Fauconberg was probably his best effort. A bit of a poser, and probably not a terribly nice one to judge by the Dymmok papers.I think we're likely to find a lot of narcissism in 15th century high places because the highly stratified society meant that the members of the top nobility were treated as a completely higher form of animal life. It takes a strong individual to not let that sort of treatment go to their head.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-29 12:29:04
Hilary Jones
Hi, again sorry for being so late responding.
In the last day or so I did read a lot more of the Johnson biography. The problem is really this. It's readable because it's a narrative, not a discussion. Now in olden times as you know when we started to learn history it was the narrative - you took what the person was saying for granted and 'learned it'. It was the stuff of the old Ordinary Level. Once you progressed beyond that then everything changed, or it certainly has since the different teaching methods of the Seventies. It's about examining, challenging, debating, which is much more fun. And you wouldn't dream of doing that without some discussion of the strength of the sources. Even modern day populist historians do this; even if they choose the wrong sources to start with.
Johnson's book at times reads like a novel, so we have to look in the chapter notes at the back for the sources and they are rarely discussed in the text. The footnotes at the bottom of the page explain that Normandy and Maine are in France!:) To be fair she does say from where she takes the proposed explanation for Henry's illness and she (and I) agree with you but she has nowhere else to go.
There was one interesting snippet though. Because MOA took so long to conceive a child Johnson speculates whether this might have been due to fasting which MOA had taken to more and more as a way of demonstrating her religious worthiness to have a child. That doesn't seem unreasonable and I wonder how many more medieval women did this without realising its effect on their fertility? I wonder if it could have affected Anne? Incidentally, MOA and Cecily seemed to have struck up a friendship which transcended their families' differences. H


On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 13:56:49 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary and Marie for the book recommendations. I just found that there is a library copy of Wolffe's Henry VI. It looks like an updated version of the one that was on my university reading list back in the 80s, but definitely worth a review. It is also good news that the paperback version of Joanna Laynesmith's book about Cecily is out.
It is always a let down when an author can't relate to their subject; however well written it is there is always something missing.As for Henry VI's health, whatever happened to him doesn't sound like schizophrenia, which tends to show up by around 25. He was in his mid 30s, and the sudden onset sounds physical, like a brain infection or possibly a stroke. Someone writing a book about him should ask a doctor what might be a better fit.
Nico

On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 12:35:28 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hi Nicholas,
Would you consider Wolffe's biography of Henry VI? Not new but very well researched and there are copies on Amazon from £7-something.
Also, I think you mentioned getting JAH's biography of Cecily Neville. Again, the real expert on Cecily is Joanna Laynesmith, who has been researching her since her MA days. Her biography of Cis is now out in paperback - I know the hardback version was a ludicrous price thanks to the publishers, and the paperback is still £25, but perhaps you could borrow from a library.
Marie





Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-29 23:16:47
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,

Can I just confirm - what Johnson book (and what Johnson) are we talking about?

Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 12:24:26
Hilary Jones
Sorry Marie. Lauren Johnson 'The Shadow King' Henry VI - just come out. I think we mentioned it just before you came back. H
On Monday, 29 July 2019, 23:22:23 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Can I just confirm - what Johnson book (and what Johnson) are we talking about?

Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 12:56:35
mariewalsh2003

Sorry Marie. Lauren Johnson 'The Shadow King' Henry VI - just come out. I think we mentioned it just before you came back. H


Ah, that explains it. As we were talking about RdoY I at first assumed you were referring to P. A.l Johnson's standard biography of him, but then you said "her" and that "she" goes into great detail about Warwick's landing in France in 1470, and it reads like a novel . . .

and I changed into my confused head.


I haven't seen Lauren Johnson's book, and based on what's been said about it here by you and others, I don't want to precious spend time or money on it, so I'll respond to your posts when I can based on what I know from other sources (to which it doesn't sound as though Johnson will be able to add anything useful).


Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 14:25:53
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Sounds as if the Johnson book suffers from the same problem as many of the Chronicles by attempting to link events together in a pre-determined narrative. As opposed to taking a subject and following it to wherever the facts, as opposed to presumptions or assumptions, may actually lead. Sounds like something to keep an eye for it at the library, but not necessarily buy... Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, again sorry for being so late responding. In the last day or so I did read a lot more of the Johnson biography. The problem is really this. It's readable because it's a narrative, not a discussion. Now in olden times as you know when we started to learn history it was the narrative - you took what the person was saying for granted and 'learned it'. It was the stuff of the old Ordinary Level. Once you progressed beyond that then everything changed, or it certainly has since the different teaching methods of the Seventies. It's about examining, challenging, debating, which is much more fun. And you wouldn't dream of doing that without some discussion of the strength of the sources. Even modern day populist historians do this; even if they choose the wrong sources to start with. Johnson's book at times reads like a novel, so we have to look in the chapter notes at the back for the sources and they are rarely discussed in the text. The footnotes at the bottom of the page explain that Normandy and Maine are in France!:) To be fair she does say from where she takes the proposed explanation for Henry's illness and she (and I) agree with you but she has nowhere else to go. There was one interesting snippet though. Because MOA took so long to conceive a child Johnson speculates whether this might have been due to fasting which MOA had taken to more and more as a way of demonstrating her religious worthiness to have a child. That doesn't seem unreasonable and I wonder how many more medieval women did this without realising its effect on their fertility? I wonder if it could have affected Anne? Incidentally, MOA and Cecily seemed to have struck up a friendship which transcended their families' differences.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 14:34:46
mariewalsh2003

Hi again, Hilary,

Just one more question before I draft a reply about York - I looked in Files for the "Irish document" you mentioned having posted but couldn't see anything. If you could let me know what it was, it would be very helpful.

M

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 15:23:24
Hilary Jones
Marie, I couldn't upload anything. But you can get it free from here:
Richard, Duke of York, as Viceroy of Ireland. 1447-1460; With Unpublished Materials for His Relations with Native Chiefs on JSTOR


Richard, Duke of York, as Viceroy of Ireland. 1447-1460; With Unpublishe...

Edmund Curtis, Richard, Duke of York, as Viceroy of Ireland. 1447-1460; With Unpublished Materials for His Relat...



I think everyone else did. H
On Tuesday, 30 July 2019, 14:37:46 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi again, Hilary,

Just one more question before I draft a reply about York - I looked in Files for the "Irish document" you mentioned having posted but couldn't see anything. If you could let me know what it was, it would be very helpful.

M

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-30 16:17:45
mariewalsh2003


Hilary wrote:
Marie, I couldn't upload anything. But you can get it free from here:
Richard, Duke of York, as Viceroy of Ireland. 1447-1460; With Unpublished Materials for His Relations with Native Chiefs on JSTOR



Marie replies:


Thanks, Hilary. Ah, I see it's Curtis' paper, not a contemporary document. Yes, this is a solid standard source for York's activities in Ireland. The Society library has a copy, and I probably first borrowed it out in the late 1970s. I already have a copy on my computer, fortunately.


I have a particular interest in Irish history because of family background.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-31 03:19:51
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I must admit I got the impression that from the time ROY went to Ireland in the 1440s he was already disgruntled and acting like 'king of Ireland'. I also recall Warwick helped him then via his seafaring skills? It was in an Irish document which I uploaded whilst you were away some time ago.


Marie answers:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.


Hilary:

Johnson, in her book which I'll write further about in another post, says that when he returned in 1450, there were at least two groups of rebels setting him up as an alternative king. She has his first encounter with Salisbury and Warwick at Dartford, where they were acting as envoys for Henry.


Marie:

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.


Hilary:

Incidentally, Johnson is not sympathetic to ROY; she sees him as an arrogant debtor (even though he did disprove the debt claims).


Marie:

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.


Hilary:

The whole issue seems to have arisen out of the jostling for power in France after the death of Bedford. Because Henry was too young to go there, and later chose not to, there was no-one to control the likes of Suffolk, Somerset and ROY, all who seem to have believed that they had been sold down the line by each other. I think the only person she does admire is MOA, and that seems to be warranted.


Marie:

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-07-31 12:30:49
Hilary Jones
Marie, Not at all and thank you!
The more I read about Henry in this book the more the Great Victorian Fib comes to mind. Victorian historians had good and bad kings (so did Winston Churchill ouch!). Both Richards and Henry were bad kings (due in the main to Shakespeare and More). What do you do to demonstrate this, you bring up examples of dissent and rebellion. The Victorians spent a century waiting for the guillotine to go up in Trafalgar Square. What had caused the French Revolution? A bad monarchy. So there must have been the same traits during the reigns of these kings to demonstrate how bad they were.
Ironically, there were probably far more examples of unrest and popular uprisings in the reign of Edward than either of these two. We know now that the October 1483 rebellions were 120 men orchestrated by the Woodvilles (a tiny proportion of the population). In Henry's case, yes there was the Cade 'rebellion', more a rampage than a rebellion, but other examples seem to be tiny groups of people, some probably drunk, denouncing his reign in favour of people like York. And until his bout of mental illness Henry did go round handing out some pretty stiff penalties. He certainly didn't sit in a corner doing nothing.
We know from the Parliament Rolls, the Fine Rolls, the Leet Books, the YHB to name but a few, that there were always grumblings in Edward's reign, right up to the 1480s. But these are either totally omitted, or demoted to popular unrest about certain issues such as common land rights, fishgarths, etc which they certainly were. If they'd occurred during the reigns of Henry or Richard they would be used to illustrate their unpopularity or ineptitude. And of course some of the rumblings during Edward's first reign, particularly amongst some of the religious communities, were pure treason.
So until a really good biographer gets hold of Henry, ROY, MOA, Somerset, Suffolk etc I doubt they'll get a fair hearing. None of them have the attraction (and I include financial in that) of Richard. But Penn did manage it with Henry VII, even if he couldn't quite make him likeable. H
On Wednesday, 31 July 2019, 03:19:59 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I must admit I got the impression that from the time ROY went to Ireland in the 1440s he was already disgruntled and acting like 'king of Ireland'. I also recall Warwick helped him then via his seafaring skills? It was in an Irish document which I uploaded whilst you were away some time ago.


Marie answers:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.


Hilary:

Johnson, in her book which I'll write further about in another post, says that when he returned in 1450, there were at least two groups of rebels setting him up as an alternative king. She has his first encounter with Salisbury and Warwick at Dartford, where they were acting as envoys for Henry.


Marie:

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.


Hilary:

Incidentally, Johnson is not sympathetic to ROY; she sees him as an arrogant debtor (even though he did disprove the debt claims).


Marie:

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.


Hilary:

The whole issue seems to have arisen out of the jostling for power in France after the death of Bedford. Because Henry was too young to go there, and later chose not to, there was no-one to control the likes of Suffolk, Somerset and ROY, all who seem to have believed that they had been sold down the line by each other. I think the only person she does admire is MOA, and that seems to be warranted.


Marie:

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-02 15:21:06
Doug Stamate

Marie,

Just wanted to say that I found your defense of RoY very welcome! I knew he'd been named Henry's heir (1459?), but I hadn't realized York had passed on claiming the throne so many times. To be honest, though, if what I've read about Edward of Lancaster is anywhere near the truth, the further from any position of power that boy was kept, the better!

Doug

(I've snipped your reply so only your replies to Hilary remain; I hope you don't mind)

Marie wrote:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence. 


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-02 15:48:00
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Perhaps it might be better to substitute those good and bad kings of the Victorian historians with the word narrative? IOW, those Victorian historians, Macauley especially comes to mind, were writing political propaganda as much as history and thus had to trim what they included to fit. When it comes to the earlier chroniclers, the narrative was often as much an attempt to glorify the current ruling dynasty, and so ensure publication, as it was to actually relate historical events. The use of classical historical writings as blueprints also meant that speeches were written and put in the mouths of the various actors without there being any possibility of those speeches having any documentary basis. So, when one wrote history, one almost had to have some idea of what it all meant; in Macauley's case, it was the superiority of the Whig political views and actions and how those views and actions had helped propel England to the status it held following Waterloo. In other cases it was, in one way or another, simply attempts to demonstrate, via the science of history, that Great Britain (especially England) had reached its position via completely natural historical laws. One side effect of writing history while holding such views was that the author had to decide just how any individual fit into the already-determined narrative; thus the good and bad kings. Then add in the kerfluffle throughout the 19th century over education in England. By concentrating on a very simplified history, the political problems caused by the CoE being the national church could be, if not completely brushed aside, at least downplayed. I should also mention that the above is my Doug Hilary wrote: Marie, Not at all and thank you! The more I read about Henry in this book the more the Great Victorian Fib comes to mind. Victorian historians had good and bad kings (so did Winston Churchill ouch!). Both Richards and Henry were bad kings (due in the main to Shakespeare and More). What do you do to demonstrate this, you bring up examples of dissent and rebellion. The Victorians spent a century waiting for the guillotine to go up in Trafalgar Square. What had caused the French Revolution? A bad monarchy. So there must have been the same traits during the reigns of these kings to demonstrate how bad they were. Ironically, there were probably far more examples of unrest and popular uprisings in the reign of Edward than either of these two. We know now that the October 1483 rebellions were 120 men orchestrated by the Woodvilles (a tiny proportion of the population). In Henry's case, yes there was the Cade 'rebellion', more a rampage than a rebellion, but other examples seem to be tiny groups of people, some probably drunk, denouncing his reign in favour of people like York. And until his bout of mental illness Henry did go round handing out some pretty stiff penalties. He certainly didn't sit in a corner doing nothing. We know from the Parliament Rolls, the Fine Rolls, the Leet Books, the YHB to name but a few, that there were always grumblings in Edward's reign, right up to the 1480s. But these are either totally omitted, or demoted to popular unrest about certain issues such as common land rights, fishgarths, etc which they certainly were. If they'd occurred during the reigns of Henry or Richard they would be used to illustrate their unpopularity or ineptitude. And of course some of the rumblings during Edward's first reign, particularly amongst some of the religious communities, were pure treason. So until a really good biographer gets hold of Henry, ROY, MOA, Somerset, Suffolk etc I doubt they'll get a fair hearing. None of them have the attraction (and I include financial in that) of Richard. But Penn did manage it with Henry VII, even if he couldn't quite make him likeable.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-03 09:39:43
Hilary Jones
Doug, I admire Marie's defence as you know, but the case for the prosecution:
'ROY had no claim to the throne whatsoever; Bolingbroke had taken it by conquest. In our unwritten constitution it was now his and that of his ancestors, that is until someone else took it by conquest. Which Edward did in 1461. Whatever promises were made by Henry VI to ROY were made under duress; just like those made by Harold to William of Normandy.
Edward IV was king by conquest and that alone.' :) :) H (who still thinks ROY was a bit of a Joseph Kennedy)

On Friday, 2 August 2019, 15:33:28 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

Just wanted to say that I found your defense of RoY very welcome! I knew he'd been named Henry's heir (1459?), but I hadn't realized York had passed on claiming the throne so many times. To be honest, though, if what I've read about Edward of Lancaster is anywhere near the truth, the further from any position of power that boy was kept, the better!

Doug

(I've snipped your reply so only your replies to Hilary remain; I hope you don't mind)

Marie wrote:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence. 


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-04 01:20:05
Doug Stamate
Hilary, To be honest, and while admitting what you've posted is the case for the prosecution, I've always understood that Britain's (then England's) unwritten Constitution provided for the succession of the eldest son or, barring that, the nearest male relative of the closest family relationship? I've recently been burned by Wikipedia, but FWIW in the article on Henry IV, it has him claiming the throne because of his descent from Edmund 1st Earl of Lancaster, the son of Henry III and not by right of conquest. For that matter, even William the Conqueror based his claim to the throne on his relationship to Edward the Confessor (they were cousins) as well as Edward supposedly naming William as his heir. At that point in time in English history, succession was determined by a meeting of the nobles/leading men of the country and not necessarily by any family relationship (assuming I remember my history readings). However, once William got the throne, Continental practices took the fore and succession was father to son (or nearest surviving male relative). Between 1066 and 1399, the succession was direct and unbroken with the exception of Matilda, Henry I's daughter, whose rights were disputed by Stephen of Blois who, note the familial relationship, was a grandson of William the Conqueror. However, even though Stephen was crowned king, because of the ensuing civil war, he was succeeded, not by his son William, but rather by Matilda's son Henry. FWIW, From 1066 until 1399, the crown went: from William the Conqueror to his son William Rufus, then from William II (Rufus) to his brother Henry I, then from Henry I to his daughter Matilda (disputed by Stephen of Blois) then from Matilda to her son Henry II. From Henry II, the succession goes: Richard I to his brother John, then to John's son Henry III. Henry III was succeeded by his son Edward I, grandson Edward II and, the deposition of Edward II notwithstanding, great-grandson Edward III. Edward III was succeeded by his grandson Richard II, the son of Edward's eldest son, Edward the Black Prince. Now, when Bolingbroke usurped the throne, the nearest male relative in direct descent from Edward III was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March. However, he was only 8 at that time and, or so I presume, that was a reason for his being passed over. As I wrote above, though, even then Bolingbroke, or his supporters, came up with a ginned-up genealogy based on Henry III's son Edmund that had every king from Edward I on as being usurpers. Regardless of Henry IV's fantasies, he had possession of the throne only so long as he and his descendants could keep it. All the while, the legal claim to the throne remained with the York family, specifically Richard Duke of York, after the death of the Mortimer Earl of March. While defeating the Lancastrians in battle made it possible for him to become king, I wasn't aware that Edward IV based his claim to the throne was by right of conquest. Have I missed something? Because it's my understanding that Edward's claim to the throne was by right of senior descent through both the male and female lines from Edward III. That it required force for Edward to attain his inheritance doesn't invalidate the priority of his legal rights to it. The first and only person, as far as I can tell, who claimed the throne by right of conquest, was Henry Tudor. James VI and I inherited the throne because he was the great-grandson of Henry VII and then passed it onto his son, grandsons and great-grand-daughters. It was only when Parliament got directly involved in the succession during Queen Anne's reign that the process of choosing a monarch returned to something such as had existed prior to Edward the Confessor; and that was because of the religious/political problems caused by having a Roman Catholic monarch as the head of a Protestant country. Interesting note: both Henry Tudor and William of Orange seem to have adopted the same stance in regards to relying on their respective wives' claim to the throne as the basis for their, Henry and William's, right to rule. To sum up, what all the above tells me is that what the unwritten Constitution did was to allow for a different set of standards in applying the rights of inheritance when it came to throne as opposed to regular civil law. A usurper might gain legitimacy for his line, but that legitimacy was always open to challenge by anyone with a better legal right by descent (and a bigger army). It also appears that, while a successful usurper right to the throne might be recognized, that usurper also recognized the near absolute necessity of putting some sort of legal gloss on his actions. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I admire Marie's defence as you know, but the case for the prosecution: 'ROY had no claim to the throne whatsoever; Bolingbroke had taken it by conquest. In our unwritten constitution it was now his and that of his ancestors, that is until someone else took it by conquest. Which Edward did in 1461.. Whatever promises were made by Henry VI to ROY were made under duress; just like those made by Harold to William of Normandy. Edward IV was king by conquest and that alone.' :) :) H (who still thinks ROY was a bit of a Joseph Kennedy)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-04 07:31:39
brian\_yorkist
Henry IV definitely did *not* rule by conquest. Parliament specifically barred his claim to do so on the advice of Chief Justice Thirning, who pointed out that this had (negative) implications for every single landowner in the country. BTW, this is why Parliament was at pains to give a statutory basis to Mr. H. Tudor's claim, since any pretence of ruling by conquest could not be allowed.
In theory, Henry ruled by inheritance, although the exact nature of his claim by inheritance is opaque, as he probably wanted it to be. Strangely, he never claimed to Richard II's heir male, which he was. (Assuming Gaunt was not a changeling, a rumour still alive at the time.)
In addition, he could reasonably claim to have been elected by Parliament, but he tended to play this down.
His two succession statutes prove that in reality he *was* a statutory king. Since no one with a proper and undisputed hereditary claim would have bothered to have one passed, let alone two.
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-04 11:18:34
Hilary Jones
Yes that is right Brian. Henry spent an awful lot of time scratching around trying to prove a hereditary right, even going right back to Edward I, who had reversed primogeniture. Unfortunately, his father Gaunt, had brought it in again.
To be fair, it would be difficult for any Parliament in those times to reject a king who had taken the throne by force, just as with HT. And, as with Edward, they probably thought the country was getting the better deal.
I always think it's ironic that the one person who took the throne with the invitation of Council (and hence Parliament) was Richard - yet he has been labelled the Usurper. H
On Sunday, 4 August 2019, 07:35:35 BST, wainwright.brian@... [] <> wrote:

Henry IV definitely did *not* rule by conquest. Parliament specifically barred his claim to do so on the advice of Chief Justice Thirning, who pointed out that this had (negative) implications for every single landowner in the country. BTW, this is why Parliament was at pains to give a statutory basis to Mr. H. Tudor's claim, since any pretence of ruling by conquest could not be allowed.


In theory, Henry ruled by inheritance, although the exact nature of his claim by inheritance is opaque, as he probably wanted it to be. Strangely, he never claimed to Richard II's heir male, which he was. (Assuming Gaunt was not a changeling, a rumour still alive at the time.)
In addition, he could reasonably claim to have been elected by Parliament, but he tended to play this down.
His two succession statutes prove that in reality he *was* a statutory king. Since no one with a proper and undisputed hereditary claim would have bothered to have one passed, let alone two.
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-04 14:52:49
Durose David
Brian,
You are right, Henry IV didn't rule by conquest.
His claim by inheritance was as Edward III named heir. Edward's entailment had named Gaunt as heir after Richard. So Bolingbroke had grown up as the third in line - and after Edward III died, he was the son of the heir apparent.
However, the entailment was rendered void when Richard II made his own. So his hereditary claim at the time of the deposition was as the heir male of Henry III.
This section of Mortimer 's book gives a summary.
https://erenow.net/postclassical/the-fears-of-henry-iv-the-life-of-englands-king/25.php

David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-05 06:09:45
Doug Stamate
Brian wrote: Henry IV definitely did *not* rule by conquest. Parliament specifically barred his claim to do so on the advice of Chief Justice Thirning, who pointed out that this had (negative) implications for every single landowner in the country. BTW, this is why Parliament was at pains to give a statutory basis to Mr. H. Tudor's claim, since any pretence of ruling by conquest could not be allowed. Doug here: Well, that makes sense. After all, if the king could claim the throne by right of conquest, then there was nothing to stop some landowner from grabbing his neighbor's property by force! Do you, or anyone else, know where I might view a copy of Tudor's Titulus Regius? Brian concluded: In theory, Henry ruled by inheritance, although the exact nature of his claim by inheritance is opaque, as he probably wanted it to be. Strangely, he never claimed to Richard II's heir male, which he was. (Assuming Gaunt was not a changeling, a rumour still alive at the time.) In addition, he could reasonably claim to have been elected by Parliament, but he tended to play this down. His two succession statutes prove that in reality he *was* a statutory king. Since no one with a proper and undisputed hereditary claim would ha ve bothered to have one passed, let alone two. Doug here: If I remember correctly, Edward III, by royal decree I believe, limited inheriting the crown solely to those whose descent was in a direct male line. However, the Wikipedia article on Henry IV also noted that Richard II likely cancelled that decree. Further than that I can't say. Now, Edward III's surviving sons, in order of birth, were: Edward, the Black Prince, Lionel of Antwerp (1st Duke of Clarence), John of Gaunt (1st Duke of Lancaster), Edmund of Langley (1st Duke of York) and Thomas of Woodstock (1st Duke of Gloucester). The Lancastrians were descended in a direct male line solely from John of Gaunt, Edward's third surviving son. The Yorks, OTOH, had two lines of descemt; one in a direct male line from Edmund of Langley, Edward's fourth surviving son, and a second from Lionel of Antwerp, Edward's second surviving son, via Philippa, his only daughter. However, because the York's descent from the Edmund of Langley was via a female, the Lancastrians claimed it didn't count. Is that right? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-05 17:42:25
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


Sorry at the delay responding. I'll try to catch up with things as soon as I can.



Hilary wrote:

Certainly by the late 1450s Alice Montagu was conspiring with William Oldhall, Vaughan and Philip Malpas - hence her attainder.


Marie replies:

I take it this claim is from Lauren Johnson's book. It is, unfortunately, based on a careless reading of the 1459 Acto of Attainder against them, which reads:

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. . . .

So Alice was nowhere near Oldhall and Vaughan, and the plotting was almost certainly unreal as there is no reason to think the Yorkists were intending the King's death at all. In fact, the King's leading of the royal army at Ludford was a nasty surprise, and made it impossible for them to stand their ground.

The Thomas Vaughan in question was the son and heir of Roger Vaughan of Tretower. As we are probably all now aware, the parish of St. James' Garlickhithe was where the Herberts had their London house, so I imagine this would have been a meeting with Sir William Herbert held in his own home. We do find Herbert and his brother Thomas acting on behalf of the Lancastrian government during the first half of 1460, so it looks as though they may have temporarily changed sides after Ludford Bridge and turned King's Evidence, spilling the beans on the meeting with York and Oldhall that they had hosted the previous summer.


Hilary wrote:

Oldhall, as you know, was ROY's 'henchman' and had to take sanctuary in St Martin's from whence he was ejected and then returned at the insistence of Henry.

Marie:

Real henchmen were, as you know, pages. Oldhall was York's Chamberlain, so the person who controlled access to him, and probably his closest friend, as we see with Edward and Lord Hastings, or Richard and Francis Lovell.

The government of Henry VI, being rather elitist, had a habit of controlling hostile lords by going after their servants and advisors. Hence in early 1453, when York was in disgrace after Dartford, rather than taking legal action against him, Parliament went after Oldhall, accusing him of having been behind Cade's Rebellion and also York's action at Dartford. Oldhall was no criminal  he was paying the price for being York's most trusted councillor. He was in fact the head of a substantial gentry family in Norfolk,; his wife was a daughter of Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and after her death the Paston's considered him as a match for their Elizabeth. His clerical brother Edmund was appointed Bishop of Meath during York's first term in Ireland.


Hilary wrote:

Interestingly this was only a couple of years' before Stillington was given the St Martin's job. I wonder if Henry intentionally put him there?

Marie:

I'm sorry, I'm not following on this one.


Hilary wrote:

Speaking from my own experience Marie, I think it is when narcissists are at the top but meet external criticism they did not envisage. Most people take a few knocks on the road to the top (even Edward), but the occasional one sails through, achieving unusual success at a young age. I think until Warwick made the misjudgment of arresting Edward he had always sailed through. And when he realised that just wasn't going to work and he wasn't as respected and adored by the country as Edward his reaction was to basically flail around and let himself be manipulated by Louis, who was as much as anything interested in a good economic investment for French trade. And the spiral went downwards and downwards. In the modern day scenario I knew, my 'Warwick' met extensive criticism from the national media, something his adoring 'henchmen' could only attempt to rescue him from. Like Warwick he flailed, the hurt was too much, only used to praise and success. And in modern terms it was easier to do a deal (just like Warwick) which led to the end of the job.


Marie:

The remark of yours to which I was responding was "In modern life they often go sick or retire; from my experience it is not true (and it could be construed as an attack on the chronically ill, which I'm sure you didn't intend).

I wasn't saying narcissists don't flail. What I described them as doing when crossed was "they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other." I think that is a pretty good description of flailing, except that is not what they would be perceiving themselves as doing. It's good that we're agreed on this, then? Narcissists flail, they don't slink off. In fact, there is one in the public eye at the moment who iben doing just that over the last month - telling some awful porkies and blaming his victims for complaining about him as if he is the real victim. Sadly, he seems to have certain sections of the press eating out of his hand because they haven't bothered to research the issue.


Hilary wrote:

Certainly the only person who really wanted it [the Warwick-Lancaster alliance] was Louis. MOA, quite rightly, didn't trust Warwick an inch and Warwick knew that. There was always the prospect that, once Warwick had helped out, MOA would 'defect' again to Oxford and Somerset her long-term allies, and ditch the whole marriage arrangement by means of an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation. I do think that very likely. And George just gets forgotten (though he was named as next heir if Anne had no children).

Marie:

The oft-claimed possibility of Edward of Lancaster pulling out of his marriage to Anne on grounds of non-consummation is a fallacy. The Catholic Chruch at this period did not require consummation to make a marriage binding. The promise was binding on its own. You could only get an annulment if consummation had proved physically impossible after at least three years of trying; for the man, this was effectively a certificate of complete and utter impotence and would render him incapable of making another marriage. This is why MoA kept putting off the marriage ceremony for so many months. She had to give in eventually because Louis countered every excuse she came up with, and wouldn't let her leave his court till the marriage had been solemnised. First she insisted on having the dispensation in her hand before going ahead  Louis got her one double quick; then she insisted that Warwick put her husband back on the throne  done; then she wanted confirmation that the coup was secure - Louis got it; then it was Advent, so the marriage couldn't possibly happen until after the end of the marital closed season on 13 January  Louis got a special dispensation from a bishop who had the power to give them out. Margaret finally caved in.


Hilary wrote:

Finally, re Rivers, I recall he pulled out of the Fauconberg chaise at the last minute to go on pilgrimage and Richard had to go (Ross)?

Marie:

No, Rivers actually did hold London against Fauconberg when the rest of the Yorkist army was returning from Tewkesbury. He disappeared at the end of the year when Edward still had need of him for other mopping up matters, but that was to join a Portuguese crusade against the Moors (he never got there because his ship ran aground in Brittany). The Rome pilgrimage was later, and on the way back he greatly unimpressed Duke Charles by making his excuses and moving swiftly on instead of joining the Burgundians in battle.


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-05 18:10:29
brian\_yorkist
It is questionable whether Edward III's purported indenture remained valid. It is now known that the Parliament of 1386 (*not* 1385) declared March heir to the throne. Whether Richard II was happy with this, and whether he would (given chance) have varied the succession is less clear. Ian Mortimer believes that by the late 1390s he regarded Edmund of Langley as his heir. Richard II did not advance March in either title or precedence, a fact which has in the past led some historians to question whether he was ever heir, although the Westminster Chronicle states in no uncertain terms that he was.
March's claim was through the female line, descent from Philippa of Clarence. Edmund of Langley and his male heirs had a male line descent from Edward III, but junior to that of Lancaster. I believe RoY and Edward IV depended principally on their descent from Clarence, although Langley's claim was doubtless a useful back-up. It meant that post 1471 Edward IV was both heir male and heir general of Edward III.
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-06 11:00:55
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder. Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand. I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Hope this clarifies it. No Johnson in sight! H



On Monday, 5 August 2019, 17:52:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Sorry at the delay responding. I'll try to catch up with things as soon as I can.



Hilary wrote:

Certainly by the late 1450s Alice Montagu was conspiring with William Oldhall, Vaughan and Philip Malpas - hence her attainder.


Marie replies:

I take it this claim is from Lauren Johnson's book. It is, unfortunately, based on a careless reading of the 1459 Acto of Attainder against them, which reads:

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. . . .

So Alice was nowhere near Oldhall and Vaughan, and the plotting was almost certainly unreal as there is no reason to think the Yorkists were intending the King's death at all. In fact, the King's leading of the royal army at Ludford was a nasty surprise, and made it impossible for them to stand their ground.

The Thomas Vaughan in question was the son and heir of Roger Vaughan of Tretower. As we are probably all now aware, the parish of St. James' Garlickhithe was where the Herberts had their London house, so I imagine this would have been a meeting with Sir William Herbert held in his own home. We do find Herbert and his brother Thomas acting on behalf of the Lancastrian government during the first half of 1460, so it looks as though they may have temporarily changed sides after Ludford Bridge and turned King's Evidence, spilling the beans on the meeting with York and Oldhall that they had hosted the previous summer.


Hilary wrote:

Oldhall, as you know, was ROY's 'henchman' and had to take sanctuary in St Martin's from whence he was ejected and then returned at the insistence of Henry.

Marie:

Real henchmen were, as you know, pages. Oldhall was York's Chamberlain, so the person who controlled access to him, and probably his closest friend, as we see with Edward and Lord Hastings, or Richard and Francis Lovell.

The government of Henry VI, being rather elitist, had a habit of controlling hostile lords by going after their servants and advisors. Hence in early 1453, when York was in disgrace after Dartford, rather than taking legal action against him, Parliament went after Oldhall, accusing him of having been behind Cade's Rebellion and also York's action at Dartford. Oldhall was no criminal  he was paying the price for being York's most trusted councillor. He was in fact the head of a substantial gentry family in Norfolk,; his wife was a daughter of Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and after her death the Paston's considered him as a match for their Elizabeth. His clerical brother Edmund was appointed Bishop of Meath during York's first term in Ireland.


Hilary wrote:

Interestingly this was only a couple of years' before Stillington was given the St Martin's job. I wonder if Henry intentionally put him there?

Marie:

I'm sorry, I'm not following on this one.


Hilary wrote:

Speaking from my own experience Marie, I think it is when narcissists are at the top but meet external criticism they did not envisage. Most people take a few knocks on the road to the top (even Edward), but the occasional one sails through, achieving unusual success at a young age. I think until Warwick made the misjudgment of arresting Edward he had always sailed through. And when he realised that just wasn't going to work and he wasn't as respected and adored by the country as Edward his reaction was to basically flail around and let himself be manipulated by Louis, who was as much as anything interested in a good economic investment for French trade. And the spiral went downwards and downwards. In the modern day scenario I knew, my 'Warwick' met extensive criticism from the national media, something his adoring 'henchmen' could only attempt to rescue him from. Like Warwick he flailed, the hurt was too much, only used to praise and success. And in modern terms it was easier to do a deal (just like Warwick) which led to the end of the job.


Marie:

The remark of yours to which I was responding was "In modern life they often go sick or retire; from my experience it is not true (and it could be construed as an attack on the chronically ill, which I'm sure you didn't intend).

I wasn't saying narcissists don't flail. What I described them as doing when crossed was "they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other." I think that is a pretty good description of flailing, except that is not what they would be perceiving themselves as doing. It's good that we're agreed on this, then? Narcissists flail, they don't slink off. In fact, there is one in the public eye at the moment who iben doing just that over the last month - telling some awful porkies and blaming his victims for complaining about him as if he is the real victim. Sadly, he seems to have certain sections of the press eating out of his hand because they haven't bothered to research the issue.


Hilary wrote:

Certainly the only person who really wanted it [the Warwick-Lancaster alliance] was Louis. MOA, quite rightly, didn't trust Warwick an inch and Warwick knew that. There was always the prospect that, once Warwick had helped out, MOA would 'defect' again to Oxford and Somerset her long-term allies, and ditch the whole marriage arrangement by means of an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation. I do think that very likely. And George just gets forgotten (though he was named as next heir if Anne had no children).

Marie:

The oft-claimed possibility of Edward of Lancaster pulling out of his marriage to Anne on grounds of non-consummation is a fallacy. The Catholic Chruch at this period did not require consummation to make a marriage binding. The promise was binding on its own. You could only get an annulment if consummation had proved physically impossible after at least three years of trying; for the man, this was effectively a certificate of complete and utter impotence and would render him incapable of making another marriage. This is why MoA kept putting off the marriage ceremony for so many months. She had to give in eventually because Louis countered every excuse she came up with, and wouldn't let her leave his court till the marriage had been solemnised. First she insisted on having the dispensation in her hand before going ahead  Louis got her one double quick; then she insisted that Warwick put her husband back on the throne  done; then she wanted confirmation that the coup was secure - Louis got it; then it was Advent, so the marriage couldn't possibly happen until after the end of the marital closed season on 13 January  Louis got a special dispensation from a bishop who had the power to give them out. Margaret finally caved in.


Hilary wrote:

Finally, re Rivers, I recall he pulled out of the Fauconberg chaise at the last minute to go on pilgrimage and Richard had to go (Ross)?

Marie:

No, Rivers actually did hold London against Fauconberg when the rest of the Yorkist army was returning from Tewkesbury. He disappeared at the end of the year when Edward still had need of him for other mopping up matters, but that was to join a Portuguese crusade against the Moors (he never got there because his ship ran aground in Brittany). The Rome pilgrimage was later, and on the way back he greatly unimpressed Duke Charles by making his excuses and moving swiftly on instead of joining the Burgundians in battle.


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-06 13:23:59
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder.
Marie replies:I know - that is what I was quoting. It does not at all say that Alice was plotting with Oldhall and Vaughan, viz:1) Oldhall and Vaughan egged York on to kill the King in London, in the parish of St. James Garlickhithe, in early July 1459;2) Alice Montagu egged the Yorkists on to kill the King at Middleham, north Yorkshire, in early August.So, as I pointed out, the Act of attainder does not put Alice anywhere near Oldhall and Vaughan. They were not even accused of plotting with each other: - Oldhall and Vaughan had been with York before he set out from London, and allegedly egging him on; - Alice had been with her husband Salisbury a month later before he set out from Middleham, and allegedly egging him on.
Hilary wrote:Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Marie replies:Sir Thomas Vaughan, ex. 1483, never had much to do with the Herberts or Vaughans of Tretower as far as I recall - the Herberts and their Vaughan kin maintained quite a number of bastards around them, as I'm sure you know. I'd be very interested in seeing the Monmouth document, Nico, if you can provide it or let me have the reference; If he was of the Tretower family, then it would make a difference to whether he is likely to have been the Thomas Vaughan at St. James Garlickhithe.
I'm afraid to have to say that, on the strength of the above (which I'm afraid is not very clear) I have to be honest that I find the connection with Stillington rather forced. I do know about Oldhall's daughter, but the problem is that, not only was Sir William Oldhall himself long dead when his descendants married Stillington's grand-daughters, but those grand-daughters were themselves married off by their guardian and not by Stillington, as I recall. The Gorges-Oldhall match having occurred, the rest is, I would suggest, a mere accident of geography.
Could you explain what you mean by "Philip Malpas was actually married to one." One what? How does this connect to Sir Thomas Vaughan? Where do the Beaumonts fit in, given that we haven't been able to establish the antecedents of Brampton's second wife? I'm sorry if I'm seeming dim.
Hilary wrote:
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.
Marie:Again, it feels to me as though you have it in for St. Martin's. I can't see the difference between Oldhall being dragged from St. Martin's by the authorities and York having the Duke of Exeter dragged from Westminster Sanctuary. How was sanctuary-breaking by Somerset's agents a case of St. Martin's "getting out of hand"? There was a general problem of sanctuary-breaking at this time, which the King's council decided to get on top of.

Hilary wrote: I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
Marie answers: How would a noted pluralist like Stillington be a safer pair of hands than his predecessor Robert Cawdray? And why wait so long (several years) after the incident before appointing Stillington? Was Cawdray dismissed in order to make way for Stillington, or did he die?
Hilary wrote:
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Marie:Her being a great heiress wouldn't have anything to do with it? Someone greedy for her estates?
Hilary wrote:Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Marie: You'll have to give me the details in Ross because this sounds like different incidents muddled up. I'm not aware that Edward expected Rivers to go into Kent with himself and Richard after their return to London in May 1471 because Rivers was being left to hold the Tower and protect the Queen, just as he had been right through this period. Nobody knew he wanted to go on a crusade until the autumn (and it wasn't to Rome, in any case) - he obtained a safe conduct on 8 October and there is no talk about it appears in the Paston Letters until December. During the summer Rivers had certainly been making himself available to help the King because he sent three men to King's Lynn on 8 July asking the Mayor and council to make warships available to him for a month to resist the King's enemies.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-06 15:28:56
Doug Stamate
Brian, Just to get it clear in my mind; heir male means the most direct line via unbroken male descent, while heir general means simply the most direct line of descent? Is it a presumption that the naming of the Mortimers as Richard's heirs by Parliament in 1386 may have been done against his wishes because the Lords Appellant took over the government in 1387? My understanding is that Richard got along fairly well with John of Gaunt, but relations with his son Bolingbroke weren't nearly so easy. Which, or so it seems to me anyway, would give Richard an excellent reason for supporting Parliament's actions, not trying to change them. I must say, though, that if he did view Edmund of Langley as his preferred heir, then it's possible that Richard hadn't cancelled Edward's indenture. Or, I suppose, it may have simply been a personal preference? Doug Brian wrote: It is questionable whether Edward III's purported indenture remained valid. It is now known that the Parliament of 1386 (*not* 1385) declared March heir to the throne. Whether Richard II was happy with this, and whether he would (given chance) have varied the succession is less clear. Ian Mortimer believes that by the late 1390s he regarded Edmund of Langley as his heir. Richard II did not advance March in either title or precedence, a fact which has in the past led some historians to question whether he was ever heir, although the Westminster Chronicle states in no uncertain terms that he was. March's claim was through the female line, descent from Philippa of Clarence. Edmund of Langley and his male heirs had a male line descent from Edward III, but junior to that of Lancaster. I believe RoY and Edward IV depended principally on their descent from Clarence, although Langley's claim was doubtless a useful back-up. It meant that post 1471 Edward IV was both heir male and heir general of Edward III.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-06 15:37:20
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I admire Marie's defence as you know, but the case for the prosecution:
'ROY had no claim to the throne whatsoever; Bolingbroke had taken it by conquest. In our unwritten constitution it was now his and that of his ancestors, that is until someone else took it by conquest. Which Edward did in 1461. Whatever promises were made by Henry VI to ROY were made under duress; just like those made by Harold to William of Normandy.
Edward IV was king by conquest and that alone.' :) :) H (who still thinks ROY was a bit of a Joseph Kennedy)


Marie replies (finally):
I know I'm late on this, but I'd just like to add the following to this post and the general thread that has emerged:-
1) My case for the defence (of York) was against the claim that he, in collusion with Salisbury and Warwick, had been plotting to take the throne all along. We had not discussed whether his claim, when actually made, was valid, so this is the case for the prosecution on a completely different charge. In other words, if I may whinge, the goalposts have been moved.
2) Although this has been refuted by later posters, Bolingbroke did in fact, like Henry VII, incorporate right of conquest into his claim, but neither relied on it alone, and it would be instantly invalidated by anyone else being in a strong enough position to assert a different claim.
3) David Durose has set out Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry IV's claim, which he claims to have been based on an indentures of Edward III and what he surmises was the male-line-only rule applying to inheritance of the throne during the reign of Henry III (i.e. prior to Edward I's settlement of 1290, which allowed for female inheritance). I have to say that I find Ian Mortimer's interpretation very dubious, particularly as neither of these supposed bedrocks of Henry's claim is mentioned either in the Act of Parliament recognising him as King or in any chronicle or other documentary source. And I can't overstress the fact that this indenture of the dying Edward III only talks about what Edward III would like to happen if Richard II were to die before he came of age, in order (as it specifically states) to avoid a protracted minority rule. It did not, as Ian Mortimer insinuates, attempt to set out the basis for the royal succession for all time to come. (By 1460, in any case, there had been a constitutional ruling by parliament to the effect that kings had no right to dictate what should happen after their deaths.) There is no evidence that the Edward III indenture was used by Bolingbroke at all, though if my memory serves me rightly we have it by virtue of a copy made sometime in the mid 15th century, perhaps with a view to countering York's claim, although again there is no evidence that it was found to be usable evidence in the event. The worst aspect of Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry's claim is that it would have negated the English claim to the throne of France and so made Henry V's campaigns a constitutional impossibility. I do wonder, however, if this could explain John of Gaunt's enthusiasm for peace with France (i.e. if the English accepted Salic Law and dropped their claim to France, then his own son would be Richard II's heir).
To save further time, I shall cut and paste from a draft introduction to a book I was writing:-" In order to set aside the claims of Richard II and his other cousins, Bolingbroke's s initial ploy was to claim a senior female-line descent  i.e. that his mother's ancestor, the disabled Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, had been the elder son of King Henry III, and not the younger as officially stated, and that he was therefore merely reasserting the claim of an ancient senior line that had been wrongfully set aside. It was easily proven to him that this was not so, but he did not entirely drop the claim, merely fudged it. Richard II was forced to abdicate, and the assembly of the Three Estates that sat to agree on his successor was treated to a sermon against child rulers, thus disposing of the rightful heir general, Edmund Mortimer, who was still five weeks shy of his eighth birthday. After that Bolingbroke put forward his own claim as the senior descendant of Henry III (inasmuch as I am descended by right line of the blood from the good lord king Henry the Third...), as conqueror (...that right that God in his grace has sent me ... in recovering it...), and as Richard II's current chosen heir: probably another ruse since Richard had made no such decree in public [this statement I still need to check]. He then offered the Estates a choice only between himself, Richard's last acknowledged heir the elderly Edward, Duke of York, and York's two sons; the right heir in common law, Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was not mentioned. Bolingbroke, the hero of the hour, was, somewhat inevitably, chosen king. Unfortunately for the stability of the country, the story of Edmund Crouchback's seniority was nonsense but, in putting it forward, Bolingbroke had tacitly acknowledged the validity of a female-line claim and so could not now easily press the superiority of his male-line descent; nor did he wish to drop the English claim to France. And the dispossessed Mortimer line was to continue, representing a possible alternative whenever the Lancastrian monarchy should be found wanting."
4) Although Ian Mortimer denies that Bolingbroke's unexplained reference to himself as the right heir of Henry III in the Act setting out his title was a covert reference to the Crouchback story, that is exactly what Richard Duke of York thought it was about in 1460, and he brought forth documents proving it to be false. The matter of York's claim was actually put to the justices, who said it was too complicated for a simple ruling. The biggest obstacle was that Henry VI had been crowned and anointed and oaths of allegiance had been sworn to him. Hence the compromise whereby York became Henry's heir.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-06 17:04:35
mariewalsh2003

To Brian's last point, although addressed to Doug:

When I was looking into this I couldn't find anything to support the oft-repeated claim that Richard II had recognised the Mortimers as his heirs, at least not consistently (to that extent I agree with Ian Mortimer, though even her I would quibble over some of the detail). But, like Ian Mortimer's Edward III indenture, this is a red herring since kings had no constitutional power to determine decisions made after their deaths (the same of naturally applies to Edward IV's codicil, though Richard may not have initially realised this - he did not become Protector until at least a week into May, when the Council decided to support this option).

Nowhere in the bill he put forward did the Duke of York made any reference to the wishes of Richard II. He simply rehearses the who-begat-whom going back to Henry III and concludes from it that, according to English custom (i.e., although he does not say so, the same custom that underpinned the Plantagenet claim to the French throne), he is the rightful heir.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 12:11:24
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, sorry I knew you were quoting the Attainder.
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information


He acts again with Malpas in February 1461. We had a very long genealogical discussion on this including some Welsh bits from Mary. I've tried to look in the back threads but they are so very difficult to search. The document mentioning Robert and Margaret was I recall a bequest to Monmouth Priory and the difficulty was in reading whether they were indeed his 'parents'. I think Nico must be on holiday but he'll probably remember. Certainly our Thomas did very well from an early age getting close to Edward which suggests that he was more than a mere member of the gentry.
We had managed to trace the London Beaumonts (those related to Thomas of Brampton fame) back to the fourteenth century where they came from the parish of St Dionysius Backchurch and Essex. They were tapicers and chandlers and left a selection of wills. Philip Malpas was the second husband of Juliana Beaumont, daughter of John Beaumont, Chandler who died in 1417. Malpas and Juliana had two daughters, one who married the Mayor Sir Ralph Josselyn and the other Mayor Thomas Cooke. Cooke's daughter married John Forster of 1483 fame. All this is backed by a significant number of wills and deeds.
Re Stillington and St Martin's, I was just saying that, as Stillington was working closely with the king (Henry) he was more likely to stop another difficult situation arising around sanctuary there. The Oldhall case is quite famous for demonstrating how St Martin's could shelter those who were detrimental to the Crown.
Re Oldhall's daughter, I agree it's incidental that his descendants married Stillington's granddaughters, it's just another interesting connection. Incidentally Wraxall, the home of the Gorges, was owned by the Montagus. I still want to know who was out to get Alice, after all, no-one honed in on Cis - but then she had no lands.
The Rivers bit is in Ross Edward IV page 181.
Hope this helps! H

On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, 13:24:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder.
Marie replies:I know - that is what I was quoting. It does not at all say that Alice was plotting with Oldhall and Vaughan, viz:1) Oldhall and Vaughan egged York on to kill the King in London, in the parish of St. James Garlickhithe, in early July 1459;2) Alice Montagu egged the Yorkists on to kill the King at Middleham, north Yorkshire, in early August.So, as I pointed out, the Act of attainder does not put Alice anywhere near Oldhall and Vaughan. They were not even accused of plotting with each other: - Oldhall and Vaughan had been with York before he set out from London, and allegedly egging him on; - Alice had been with her husband Salisbury a month later before he set out from Middleham, and allegedly egging him on.
Hilary wrote:Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Marie replies:Sir Thomas Vaughan, ex. 1483, never had much to do with the Herberts or Vaughans of Tretower as far as I recall - the Herberts and their Vaughan kin maintained quite a number of bastards around them, as I'm sure you know. I'd be very interested in seeing the Monmouth document, Nico, if you can provide it or let me have the reference; If he was of the Tretower family, then it would make a difference to whether he is likely to have been the Thomas Vaughan at St. James Garlickhithe.
I'm afraid to have to say that, on the strength of the above (which I'm afraid is not very clear) I have to be honest that I find the connection with Stillington rather forced. I do know about Oldhall's daughter, but the problem is that, not only was Sir William Oldhall himself long dead when his descendants married Stillington's grand-daughters, but those grand-daughters were themselves married off by their guardian and not by Stillington, as I recall. The Gorges-Oldhall match having occurred, the rest is, I would suggest, a mere accident of geography.
Could you explain what you mean by "Philip Malpas was actually married to one." One what? How does this connect to Sir Thomas Vaughan? Where do the Beaumonts fit in, given that we haven't been able to establish the antecedents of Brampton's second wife? I'm sorry if I'm seeming dim.
Hilary wrote:
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.
Marie:Again, it feels to me as though you have it in for St. Martin's. I can't see the difference between Oldhall being dragged from St. Martin's by the authorities and York having the Duke of Exeter dragged from Westminster Sanctuary. How was sanctuary-breaking by Somerset's agents a case of St. Martin's "getting out of hand"? There was a general problem of sanctuary-breaking at this time, which the King's council decided to get on top of.

Hilary wrote: I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
Marie answers: How would a noted pluralist like Stillington be a safer pair of hands than his predecessor Robert Cawdray? And why wait so long (several years) after the incident before appointing Stillington? Was Cawdray dismissed in order to make way for Stillington, or did he die?
Hilary wrote:
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Marie:Her being a great heiress wouldn't have anything to do with it? Someone greedy for her estates?
Hilary wrote:Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Marie: You'll have to give me the details in Ross because this sounds like different incidents muddled up. I'm not aware that Edward expected Rivers to go into Kent with himself and Richard after their return to London in May 1471 because Rivers was being left to hold the Tower and protect the Queen, just as he had been right through this period. Nobody knew he wanted to go on a crusade until the autumn (and it wasn't to Rome, in any case) - he obtained a safe conduct on 8 October and there is no talk about it appears in the Paston Letters until December. During the summer Rivers had certainly been making himself available to help the King because he sent three men to King's Lynn on 8 July asking the Mayor and council to make warships available to him for a month to resist the King's enemies.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 12:14:41
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie. I too have read Mortimer (several times) and agree with you that it's far from clear. As you imply, whatever solution Henry chose he tied himself in another knot.
Standing back from all the complex legal arguments about heredity, there is one big problem concerning the accessions of Henry IV and Edward IV and that is that the previous kings were still alive. Richard II was young enough to still have had a son, Henry VI had one and yet both were bullied out of the throne using excuses about whether or not primogeniture should have been applied. Would anyone have dared to do that to Edward III?
That's why it's impossible to call on legal grounds really. You'd have to go right back to the childless Confessor and basically invalidate every king since. So in the end, whatever complex legal precedents you dig up it will always be the strong one who wins in the medieval period - and a strong man of course! As Matilda found out. H
PS I don't dislike ROY I just think he got a taste of doing the job and believing he could do it better. He certainly had a better argument than HT!
On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, 15:49:28 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Doug, I admire Marie's defence as you know, but the case for the prosecution:
'ROY had no claim to the throne whatsoever; Bolingbroke had taken it by conquest. In our unwritten constitution it was now his and that of his ancestors, that is until someone else took it by conquest. Which Edward did in 1461. Whatever promises were made by Henry VI to ROY were made under duress; just like those made by Harold to William of Normandy.
Edward IV was king by conquest and that alone.' :) :) H (who still thinks ROY was a bit of a Joseph Kennedy)


Marie replies (finally):
I know I'm late on this, but I'd just like to add the following to this post and the general thread that has emerged:-
1) My case for the defence (of York) was against the claim that he, in collusion with Salisbury and Warwick, had been plotting to take the throne all along. We had not discussed whether his claim, when actually made, was valid, so this is the case for the prosecution on a completely different charge. In other words, if I may whinge, the goalposts have been moved.
2) Although this has been refuted by later posters, Bolingbroke did in fact, like Henry VII, incorporate right of conquest into his claim, but neither relied on it alone, and it would be instantly invalidated by anyone else being in a strong enough position to assert a different claim.
3) David Durose has set out Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry IV's claim, which he claims to have been based on an indentures of Edward III and what he surmises was the male-line-only rule applying to inheritance of the throne during the reign of Henry III (i.e. prior to Edward I's settlement of 1290, which allowed for female inheritance). I have to say that I find Ian Mortimer's interpretation very dubious, particularly as neither of these supposed bedrocks of Henry's claim is mentioned either in the Act of Parliament recognising him as King or in any chronicle or other documentary source. And I can't overstress the fact that this indenture of the dying Edward III only talks about what Edward III would like to happen if Richard II were to die before he came of age, in order (as it specifically states) to avoid a protracted minority rule. It did not, as Ian Mortimer insinuates, attempt to set out the basis for the royal succession for all time to come. (By 1460, in any case, there had been a constitutional ruling by parliament to the effect that kings had no right to dictate what should happen after their deaths.) There is no evidence that the Edward III indenture was used by Bolingbroke at all, though if my memory serves me rightly we have it by virtue of a copy made sometime in the mid 15th century, perhaps with a view to countering York's claim, although again there is no evidence that it was found to be usable evidence in the event. The worst aspect of Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry's claim is that it would have negated the English claim to the throne of France and so made Henry V's campaigns a constitutional impossibility. I do wonder, however, if this could explain John of Gaunt's enthusiasm for peace with France (i.e. if the English accepted Salic Law and dropped their claim to France, then his own son would be Richard II's heir).
To save further time, I shall cut and paste from a draft introduction to a book I was writing:-" In order to set aside the claims of Richard II and his other cousins, Bolingbroke's s initial ploy was to claim a senior female-line descent  i.e. that his mother's ancestor, the disabled Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, had been the elder son of King Henry III, and not the younger as officially stated, and that he was therefore merely reasserting the claim of an ancient senior line that had been wrongfully set aside. It was easily proven to him that this was not so, but he did not entirely drop the claim, merely fudged it. Richard II was forced to abdicate, and the assembly of the Three Estates that sat to agree on his successor was treated to a sermon against child rulers, thus disposing of the rightful heir general, Edmund Mortimer, who was still five weeks shy of his eighth birthday. After that Bolingbroke put forward his own claim as the senior descendant of Henry III (inasmuch as I am descended by right line of the blood from the good lord king Henry the Third...), as conqueror (...that right that God in his grace has sent me ... in recovering it...), and as Richard II's current chosen heir: probably another ruse since Richard had made no such decree in public [this statement I still need to check]. He then offered the Estates a choice only between himself, Richard's last acknowledged heir the elderly Edward, Duke of York, and York's two sons; the right heir in common law, Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was not mentioned. Bolingbroke, the hero of the hour, was, somewhat inevitably, chosen king. Unfortunately for the stability of the country, the story of Edmund Crouchback's seniority was nonsense but, in putting it forward, Bolingbroke had tacitly acknowledged the validity of a female-line claim and so could not now easily press the superiority of his male-line descent; nor did he wish to drop the English claim to France. And the dispossessed Mortimer line was to continue, representing a possible alternative whenever the Lancastrian monarchy should be found wanting."
4) Although Ian Mortimer denies that Bolingbroke's unexplained reference to himself as the right heir of Henry III in the Act setting out his title was a covert reference to the Crouchback story, that is exactly what Richard Duke of York thought it was about in 1460, and he brought forth documents proving it to be false. The matter of York's claim was actually put to the justices, who said it was too complicated for a simple ruling. The biggest obstacle was that Henry VI had been crowned and anointed and oaths of allegiance had been sworn to him. Hence the compromise whereby York became Henry's heir.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 13:32:29
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Sorry I have been absent for a while. I have been following, but school holidays are not helpful with anything that demands concentration.
Thanks Hilary for the reminder for how the Beaumont-Philip Malpas-Thomas Cooke link worked.
Marie, I will have to go through some of the notes from about a year ago, but in one of the visitations there was a listing of all the children of Roger Vaughan of Tretower - legitimate and illegitimate - and there was a Thomas Vaughan who was about the right age group for this Thomas Vaughan. In a footnote it mentions that he was the son of of Roger and the daughter of 'Prior Coch' of Abergavanney Priory. Vaughan was clearly from the general area around Abergavenney and his early appointments were consistent with a member of the Vaughan family. The reference to 'Robert and Margaret' of Monmouth was a chantry set up by Thomas Vaughan, but as Hilary mentions it wasn't very clear. I couldn't find any independent evidence of a Robert and Margaret Vaughan of Monmouth at the relevant time.
I will dig out the relevant link later.
Nico



On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 12:15:22 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie, sorry I knew you were quoting the Attainder.
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information


He acts again with Malpas in February 1461. We had a very long genealogical discussion on this including some Welsh bits from Mary. I've tried to look in the back threads but they are so very difficult to search. The document mentioning Robert and Margaret was I recall a bequest to Monmouth Priory and the difficulty was in reading whether they were indeed his 'parents'. I think Nico must be on holiday but he'll probably remember. Certainly our Thomas did very well from an early age getting close to Edward which suggests that he was more than a mere member of the gentry.
We had managed to trace the London Beaumonts (those related to Thomas of Brampton fame) back to the fourteenth century where they came from the parish of St Dionysius Backchurch and Essex. They were tapicers and chandlers and left a selection of wills. Philip Malpas was the second husband of Juliana Beaumont, daughter of John Beaumont, Chandler who died in 1417. Malpas and Juliana had two daughters, one who married the Mayor Sir Ralph Josselyn and the other Mayor Thomas Cooke. Cooke's daughter married John Forster of 1483 fame. All this is backed by a significant number of wills and deeds.
Re Stillington and St Martin's, I was just saying that, as Stillington was working closely with the king (Henry) he was more likely to stop another difficult situation arising around sanctuary there. The Oldhall case is quite famous for demonstrating how St Martin's could shelter those who were detrimental to the Crown.
Re Oldhall's daughter, I agree it's incidental that his descendants married Stillington's granddaughters, it's just another interesting connection. Incidentally Wraxall, the home of the Gorges, was owned by the Montagus. I still want to know who was out to get Alice, after all, no-one honed in on Cis - but then she had no lands.
The Rivers bit is in Ross Edward IV page 181.
Hope this helps! H

On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, 13:24:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder.
Marie replies:I know - that is what I was quoting. It does not at all say that Alice was plotting with Oldhall and Vaughan, viz:1) Oldhall and Vaughan egged York on to kill the King in London, in the parish of St. James Garlickhithe, in early July 1459;2) Alice Montagu egged the Yorkists on to kill the King at Middleham, north Yorkshire, in early August.So, as I pointed out, the Act of attainder does not put Alice anywhere near Oldhall and Vaughan. They were not even accused of plotting with each other: - Oldhall and Vaughan had been with York before he set out from London, and allegedly egging him on; - Alice had been with her husband Salisbury a month later before he set out from Middleham, and allegedly egging him on.
Hilary wrote:Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Marie replies:Sir Thomas Vaughan, ex. 1483, never had much to do with the Herberts or Vaughans of Tretower as far as I recall - the Herberts and their Vaughan kin maintained quite a number of bastards around them, as I'm sure you know. I'd be very interested in seeing the Monmouth document, Nico, if you can provide it or let me have the reference; If he was of the Tretower family, then it would make a difference to whether he is likely to have been the Thomas Vaughan at St. James Garlickhithe.
I'm afraid to have to say that, on the strength of the above (which I'm afraid is not very clear) I have to be honest that I find the connection with Stillington rather forced. I do know about Oldhall's daughter, but the problem is that, not only was Sir William Oldhall himself long dead when his descendants married Stillington's grand-daughters, but those grand-daughters were themselves married off by their guardian and not by Stillington, as I recall. The Gorges-Oldhall match having occurred, the rest is, I would suggest, a mere accident of geography.
Could you explain what you mean by "Philip Malpas was actually married to one." One what? How does this connect to Sir Thomas Vaughan? Where do the Beaumonts fit in, given that we haven't been able to establish the antecedents of Brampton's second wife? I'm sorry if I'm seeming dim.
Hilary wrote:
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.
Marie:Again, it feels to me as though you have it in for St. Martin's. I can't see the difference between Oldhall being dragged from St. Martin's by the authorities and York having the Duke of Exeter dragged from Westminster Sanctuary. How was sanctuary-breaking by Somerset's agents a case of St. Martin's "getting out of hand"? There was a general problem of sanctuary-breaking at this time, which the King's council decided to get on top of.

Hilary wrote: I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
Marie answers: How would a noted pluralist like Stillington be a safer pair of hands than his predecessor Robert Cawdray? And why wait so long (several years) after the incident before appointing Stillington? Was Cawdray dismissed in order to make way for Stillington, or did he die?
Hilary wrote:
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Marie:Her being a great heiress wouldn't have anything to do with it? Someone greedy for her estates?
Hilary wrote:Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Marie: You'll have to give me the details in Ross because this sounds like different incidents muddled up. I'm not aware that Edward expected Rivers to go into Kent with himself and Richard after their return to London in May 1471 because Rivers was being left to hold the Tower and protect the Queen, just as he had been right through this period. Nobody knew he wanted to go on a crusade until the autumn (and it wasn't to Rome, in any case) - he obtained a safe conduct on 8 October and there is no talk about it appears in the Paston Letters until December. During the summer Rivers had certainly been making himself available to help the King because he sent three men to King's Lynn on 8 July asking the Mayor and council to make warships available to him for a month to resist the King's enemies.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 14:04:09
mariewalsh2003


Hilary wrote:
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information

He acts again with Malpas in February 1461. We had a very long genealogical discussion on this including some Welsh bits from Mary. I've tried to look in the back threads but they are so very difficult to search. The document mentioning Robert and Margaret was I recall a bequest to Monmouth Priory and the difficulty was in reading whether they were indeed his 'parents'. I think Nico must be on holiday but he'll probably remember. Certainly our Thomas did very well from an early age getting close to Edward which suggests that he was more than a mere member of the gentry.

Marie replies:I'm sorry, it just seems to me the writer of this piece is muddled because he's not a specialist in the period and has read something by a writer who confused the two Sir Thomas Vaughans, making Hughes unsure as to whether the one executed in 1483 may have belonged to Tretower. Please could you let me see the Monmouth document, Nico, when you're next around?

Hilary:We had managed to trace the London Beaumonts (those related to Thomas of Brampton fame) back to the fourteenth century where they came from the parish of St Dionysius Backchurch and Essex. They were tapicers and chandlers and left a selection of wills. Philip Malpas was the second husband of Juliana Beaumont, daughter of John Beaumont, Chandler who died in 1417. Malpas and Juliana had two daughters, one who married the Mayor Sir Ralph Josselyn and the other Mayor Thomas Cooke. Cooke's daughter married John Forster of 1483 fame. All this is backed by a significant number of wills and deeds.
Marie:But we don't know Margaret Beaumont's parentage, except that she seems to have been a Londoner. If the Thomas Beaumont to whom you're referring is the one I think you mean, then he died childless. I can see the family connection between Cooke and Forster, but I'm afraid you have not provided proof of a family connection to Brampton's second wife because we don't know who her father was, still less evidence that they were somehow involved with each other politically.
Hilary wrote:Re Stillington and St Martin's, I was just saying that, as Stillington was working closely with the king (Henry) he was more likely to stop another difficult situation arising around sanctuary there. The Oldhall case is quite famous for demonstrating how St Martin's could shelter those who were detrimental to the Crown.
Marie:Surely you're not saying Henry was putting Stillington there to stop people availing of sanctuary rights?
Hilary wrote:Re Oldhall's daughter, I agree it's incidental that his descendants married Stillington's granddaughters, it's just another interesting connection.
Marie:Such connections are far too easy to make because of the interconnectedness of the top echelons of society in any area. Perhaps you should try as a control exercise taking three names from a county or city at random and seeing what connections you can find. Family links are only politically relevant when they were politically relevant - i.e. when relations got together in a political cause, or took opposing sides because of family rivalries. So you can help elucidate political groupings by identifying the members' family ties to each other, but you can't assume political alignment from relationships. This has been said many times and it's as true as ever.
Incidentally Wraxall, the home of the Gorges, was owned by the Montagus. I still want to know who was out to get Alice, after all, no-one honed in on Cis - but then she had no lands.
Marie:Indeed.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 14:47:24
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, re your family political point I agree entirely. Sir Thomas Cooke's son fought for Richard at Bosworth!
But families do help us to understand the world in which people lived. And as with all, you like them or you hate them, often in equal measure.
I may take up your challenge. Incidentally forgot to say that Sir Ralph Josselyns's second wife was the sister of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. So we have Beaumont and Brampton and Barley...... H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 14:26:54 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Hilary wrote:
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information

He acts again with Malpas in February 1461. We had a very long genealogical discussion on this including some Welsh bits from Mary. I've tried to look in the back threads but they are so very difficult to search. The document mentioning Robert and Margaret was I recall a bequest to Monmouth Priory and the difficulty was in reading whether they were indeed his 'parents'. I think Nico must be on holiday but he'll probably remember. Certainly our Thomas did very well from an early age getting close to Edward which suggests that he was more than a mere member of the gentry.

Marie replies:I'm sorry, it just seems to me the writer of this piece is muddled because he's not a specialist in the period and has read something by a writer who confused the two Sir Thomas Vaughans, making Hughes unsure as to whether the one executed in 1483 may have belonged to Tretower. Please could you let me see the Monmouth document, Nico, when you're next around?

Hilary:We had managed to trace the London Beaumonts (those related to Thomas of Brampton fame) back to the fourteenth century where they came from the parish of St Dionysius Backchurch and Essex. They were tapicers and chandlers and left a selection of wills. Philip Malpas was the second husband of Juliana Beaumont, daughter of John Beaumont, Chandler who died in 1417. Malpas and Juliana had two daughters, one who married the Mayor Sir Ralph Josselyn and the other Mayor Thomas Cooke. Cooke's daughter married John Forster of 1483 fame. All this is backed by a significant number of wills and deeds.
Marie:But we don't know Margaret Beaumont's parentage, except that she seems to have been a Londoner. If the Thomas Beaumont to whom you're referring is the one I think you mean, then he died childless. I can see the family connection between Cooke and Forster, but I'm afraid you have not provided proof of a family connection to Brampton's second wife because we don't know who her father was, still less evidence that they were somehow involved with each other politically.
Hilary wrote:Re Stillington and St Martin's, I was just saying that, as Stillington was working closely with the king (Henry) he was more likely to stop another difficult situation arising around sanctuary there. The Oldhall case is quite famous for demonstrating how St Martin's could shelter those who were detrimental to the Crown.
Marie:Surely you're not saying Henry was putting Stillington there to stop people availing of sanctuary rights?
Hilary wrote:Re Oldhall's daughter, I agree it's incidental that his descendants married Stillington's granddaughters, it's just another interesting connection.
Marie:Such connections are far too easy to make because of the interconnectedness of the top echelons of society in any area. Perhaps you should try as a control exercise taking three names from a county or city at random and seeing what connections you can find. Family links are only politically relevant when they were politically relevant - i.e. when relations got together in a political cause, or took opposing sides because of family rivalries. So you can help elucidate political groupings by identifying the members' family ties to each other, but you can't assume political alignment from relationships. This has been said many times and it's as true as ever.
Incidentally Wraxall, the home of the Gorges, was owned by the Montagus. I still want to know who was out to get Alice, after all, no-one honed in on Cis - but then she had no lands.
Marie:Indeed.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 14:57:47
mariewalsh2003

P. S.


I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.


Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.


Marie


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 15:01:51
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: //snip// Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand. I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents. //snip// Doug here: If I remember correctly, the Oldhall affair was in 1453. I can't find when Stillington became Dean of St. Martin's, but I'm presuming it was sometime afterwards. Do we have an exact date? It likely doesn't matter, but still worried me a bit. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 15:20:13
Doug Stamate
Marie, Then when the Act of Parliament was passed recognizing Henry IV as king, neither Henry's claim based on conquest nor his claim about Edward III's indenture were included? That's very interesting! However, it does rather look as if the Crouchback claim Henry, or his supporters, tried to use provides at least a little support to my idea that when one king replaced another via deposition, some form, almost any form, of legal right was sought. Of course, once crowned, anointed and with allegiances sworn, such a person was in as strong a position as possible for any king. Doug who also found Mortimer's interpretation rather confusing... Marie replies (finally): I know I'm late on this, but I'd just like to add the following to this post and the general thread that has emerged:- 1) My case for the defence (of York) was against the claim that he, in collusion with Salisbury and Warwick, had been plotting to take the throne all along. We had not discussed whether his claim, when actually made, was valid, so this is the case for the prosecution on a completely different charge. In other words, if I may whinge, the goalposts have been moved. 2) Although this has been refuted by later posters, Bolingbroke did in fact, like Henry VII, incorporate right of conquest into his claim, but neither relied on it alone, and it would be instantly invalidated by anyone else being in a strong enough position to assert a different claim. 3) David Durose has set out Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry IV's claim, which he claims to have been based on an indentures of Edward III and what he surmises was the male-line-only rule applying to inheritance of the throne during the reign of Henry III (i.e. prior to Edward I's settlement of 1290, which allowed for female inheritance). I have to say that I find Ian Mortimer's interpretation very dubious, particularly as neither of these supposed bedrocks of Henry's claim is mentioned either in the Act of Parliament recognising him as King or in any chronicle or other documentary source. And I can't overstress the fact that this indenture of the dying Edward III only talks about what Edward III would like to happen if Richard II were to die before he came of age, in order (as it specifically states) to avoid a protracted minority rule. It did not, as Ian Mortimer insinuates, attempt to set out the basis for the royal succession for all time to come. (By 1460, in any case, there had been a constitutional ruling by parliament to the effect that kings had no right to dictate what should happen after their deaths.) There is no evidence that the Edward III indenture was used by Bolingbroke at all, though if my memory serves me rightly we have it by virtue of a copy made sometime in the mid 15th century, perhaps with a view to countering York's claim, although again there is no evidence that it was found to be usable evidence in the event. The worst aspect of Ian Mortimer's interpretation of Henry's claim is that it would have negated the English claim to the throne of France and so made Henry V's campaigns a constitutional impossibility. I do wonder, however, if this could explain John of Gaunt's enthusiasm for peace with France (i.e. if the English accepted Salic Law and dropped their claim to France, then his own son would be Richard II's heir). To save further time, I shall cut and paste from a draft introduction to a book I was writing:- " In order to set aside the claims of Richard II and his other cousins, Bolingbroke's s initial ploy was to claim a senior female-line descent  i.e. that his mother's ancestor, the disabled Edmund Crouchback, Earl of Lancaster, had been the elder son of King Henry III, and not the younger as officially stated, and that he was therefore merely reasserting the claim of an ancient senior line that had been wrongfully set aside. It was easily proven to him that this was not so, but he did not entirely drop the claim, merely fudged it. Richard II was forced to abdicate, and the assembly of the Three Estates that sat to agree on his successor was treated to a sermon against child rulers, thus disposing of the rightful heir general, Edmund Mortimer, who was still five weeks shy of his eighth birthday. After that Bolingbroke put forward his own claim as the senior descendant of Henry III (inasmuch as I am descended by right line of the blood from the good lord king Henry the Third...), as conqueror (...that right that God in his grace has sent me ... in recovering it...), and as Richard II's current chosen heir: probably another ruse since Richard had made no such decree in public [this statement I still need to check]. He then offered the Estates a choice only between himself, Richard's last acknowledged heir the elderly Edward, Duke of York, and York's two sons; the right heir in common law, Edmund Mortimer, Earl of March, was not mentioned. Bolingbroke, the hero of the hour, was, somewhat inevitably, chosen king. Unfortunately for the stability of the country, the story of Edmund Crouchback's seniority was nonsense but, in putting it forward, Bolingbroke had tacitly acknowledged the validity of a female-line claim and so could not now easily press the superiority of his male-line descent; nor did he wish to drop the English claim to France. And the dispossessed Mortimer line was to continue, representing a possible alternative whenever the Lancastrian monarchy should be found wanting."
4) Although Ian Mortimer denies that Bolingbroke's unexplained reference to himself as the right heir of Henry III in the Act setting out his title was a covert reference to the Crouchback story, that is exactly what Richard Duke of York thought it was about in 1460, and he brought forth documents proving it to be false. The matter of York's claim was actually put to the justices, who said it was too complicated for a simple ruling. The biggest obstacle was that Henry VI had been crowned and anointed and oaths of allegiance had been sworn to him. Hence the compromise whereby York became Henry's heir.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 15:21:15
Hilary Jones
Hi, I think it's online as we shared it. Part of it is difficult to read. I'll have a hunt. H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 15:19:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P. S.


I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.


Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.


Marie


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 15:26:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, re your family political point I agree entirely. Sir Thomas Cooke's son fought for Richard at Bosworth! But families do help us to understand the world in which people lived. And as with all, you like them or you hate them, often in equal measure. I may take up your challenge. Incidentally forgot to say that Sir Ralph Josselyns's second wife was the sister of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. So we have Beaumont and Brampton and Barley...... Doug here: Beaumont, Brampton and Barley, oh my! (Sorry about that, but I couldn't reisist! It was just too much like Lions, tigers and bears..oh my! I do agree that familial relationships give an excellent place to start when it comes to sussing out who supported whom, but further than that I'm hesitant to go. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 15:40:38
Hilary Jones
Forgot to add that the genealogy site I sent you this morning was something I found quickly today which explained the controversy over Vaughan's birth and his relationship with Malpas. We spent hours going through Welsh and English Visitations and genealogies trying to locate Robert and Margaret Vaughan. In fact I recall we did wonder whether Robert was a mistake for Roger? H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 15:19:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P. S.


I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.


Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.


Marie


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 18:05:51
ricard1an
I vaguely remember commenting but I will look to see if I can find the original post as I cannot remember exactly what was said. I think it may have been about various places and their geography. I have however found some notes about the Herberts and their connections to the Vaughans. William Herbert ( made Earl of Pembroke and father of the William who married Katherine Plantagenet) would have been initially known as William ap William ap Thomas, his father being William ap Thomas, an adherent of R of Y. E4 rewarded the young William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronimic. His mother was Gwladys ferch Davydd Gam and her first husband was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine not Tretower. Her two sons by that marriage were brought up with her ap Thomas / Herbert sons.
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-07 19:58:41
ricard1an
Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 11:59:58
Hilary Jones
Just come up with a tiny smidgen this morning Mary et al in, of all places, the brochure to Jesus College, Oxford.
It's a deed from 1350 by Robert Vaughan, son of Roger Vaughan, gifting land to his brother Peter, a priest. The land is in Durstone which turns out to be two miles from Bredwardine and it's the first mention of a Robert.
Now as you know, there were two Roger Vaughans before 1415 (when the younger died). Some biographies have them both as sons of Walter Sais and Florence Bredwardine, others have them father and son. I tend to think the latter, because the elder Roger is only shown in the Visitations as having Roger the younger and a daughter. If he'd had sons Robert and Peter they not brother Roger the younger would have inherited.
So could the Robert, of Robert and Margaret on Monmouth have been the son of this Robert? That would make 'our' Thomas a cousin to Thomas of Tretower, which could make sense? H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 19:58:49 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 12:09:07
Hilary Jones
Sorry, I was rushing off last night and should have explained better. I'm not a genealogist per se, what I am interested in is the networks surrounding some of our key people. For example, what throws together people as disparate as Rotherham King,Forster,Morton, Hastings in June 1483? I doubt it was love of young Edward. And what had Vaughan done that warranted execution?
You can only usually start to find these networks by looking at family links and they take you outwards to others. If you look at the October 1483 rebels I don't think I've come across a single stand alone person; they either have shared families or shared grudges.
I would say it all begins to change in the next century when you have huge issues such as religion which give unrelated people a much stronger common bond. Hope this helps. H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 16:09:46 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Forgot to add that the genealogy site I sent you this morning was something I found quickly today which explained the controversy over Vaughan's birth and his relationship with Malpas. We spent hours going through Welsh and English Visitations and genealogies trying to locate Robert and Margaret Vaughan. In fact I recall we did wonder whether Robert was a mistake for Roger? H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 15:19:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P. S.


I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.


Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.


Marie


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 12:17:44
Hilary Jones
Yes Doug 1456. H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 15:33:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: //snip// Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.. I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents. //snip// Doug here: If I remember correctly, the Oldhall affair was in 1453. I can't find when Stillington became Dean of St. Martin's, but I'm presuming it was sometime afterwards. Do we have an exact date? It likely doesn't matter, but still worried me a bit. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 12:18:54
Hilary Jones
Ha Doug you've just read my other reply :) :) H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 16:13:54 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, re your family political point I agree entirely. Sir Thomas Cooke's son fought for Richard at Bosworth! But families do help us to understand the world in which people lived. And as with all, you like them or you hate them, often in equal measure. I may take up your challenge. Incidentally forgot to say that Sir Ralph Josselyns's second wife was the sister of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. So we have Beaumont and Brampton and Barley...... Doug here: Beaumont, Brampton and Barley, oh my! (Sorry about that, but I couldn't reisist! It was just too much like Lions, tigers and bears..oh my! I do agree that familial relationships give an excellent place to start when it comes to sussing out who supported whom, but further than that I'm hesitant to go. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 12:54:15
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
I would be interested in looking at the Monmouth document as I have never read the original. Marie, Could you post it in the files? I had thought that 'Robert' may have been a error and the entry should have read 'Roger,' and 'Margaret' could have been a reference to Roger of Tretower's second wife, Margaret Audley. Another possibility was that Robert may have been the son of Roger and Thomas was his son, the wrong generation but still of the same family.
I have done other genealogy on the Vaughan family along with other families in Wales and the Marches. They are extremely prolific and there are many branches. The name can be simply be an anglicization of Fychan and there a lot of unrelated families, but the Vaughans that you find in high places are likely to be related to the Bredwardine/Tretower group in some way.

Here is the link to footnote in the visitations:https://archive.org/details/HeraldicVisitationsOfWalesAndPartOfTheMarchesBetweenTheYears1586/page/n69
Thomas Vaughan is also shown on stirnet as #12+ under other illegitimate children (not definitively our Thomas).https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/uv/vaughan07.php
I have been looking through some older posts. The Beaumont and Philip Malpas reference are under a large section called 'John Bonauntre of London' which goes back several months from last summer to early this year. Unfortunately, Yahoo deleted some of this section automatically, so some posts may have been lost (I don't know if it was just my account). Hilary traced the Beaumont/Bonauntres back to the city of London through Thomas Beaumont's mother Emme Spayne. It wasn't certain exactly how the precise family tree worked in relation to Thomas and Margaret Brampton, but there was a pattern of marriages and linked families that strongly suggested that they were descendants of the Bonauntres who were tapicers and chandlers in 14th century London, who left wills citing links to Essex and Kent. There were also some Bonauntres of Crewkerne in Somerset, who may have served Clarence. The Spayne family, associated with London and Kent also intermarried with the Wilfords from the same area. Beaumont was a protegee of Oliver King, who was also from the London merchant community. We have never established exactly who Ralph Wilford was, but we speculated that Thomas Beaumont may have been in a position to provide information about him. Also, Beaumont's change from academia to prestigious ecclesiastical appointments coincides with the Warbeck crisis and since his sister was married to Brampton, he was likely to have been in a position to provide valuable information about PW.
Nico






On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 19:58:48 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 13:58:22
Hilary Jones
Knew we'd seen it!!! Here: H

Chapter One: Monmouthshire, Wales.
Chapter One: Monmouthshire, Wales.

Monmouthshire Wales.





On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 12:54:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Hi,
I would be interested in looking at the Monmouth document as I have never read the original. Marie, Could you post it in the files? I had thought that 'Robert' may have been a error and the entry should have read 'Roger,' and 'Margaret' could have been a reference to Roger of Tretower's second wife, Margaret Audley. Another possibility was that Robert may have been the son of Roger and Thomas was his son, the wrong generation but still of the same family.
I have done other genealogy on the Vaughan family along with other families in Wales and the Marches. They are extremely prolific and there are many branches. The name can be simply be an anglicization of Fychan and there a lot of unrelated families, but the Vaughans that you find in high places are likely to be related to the Bredwardine/Tretower group in some way..

Here is the link to footnote in the visitations:https://archive.org/details/HeraldicVisitationsOfWalesAndPartOfTheMarchesBetweenTheYears1586/page/n69
Thomas Vaughan is also shown on stirnet as #12+ under other illegitimate children (not definitively our Thomas).https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/uv/vaughan07.php
I have been looking through some older posts. The Beaumont and Philip Malpas reference are under a large section called 'John Bonauntre of London' which goes back several months from last summer to early this year. Unfortunately, Yahoo deleted some of this section automatically, so some posts may have been lost (I don't know if it was just my account). Hilary traced the Beaumont/Bonauntres back to the city of London through Thomas Beaumont's mother Emme Spayne. It wasn't certain exactly how the precise family tree worked in relation to Thomas and Margaret Brampton, but there was a pattern of marriages and linked families that strongly suggested that they were descendants of the Bonauntres who were tapicers and chandlers in 14th century London, who left wills citing links to Essex and Kent. There were also some Bonauntres of Crewkerne in Somerset, who may have served Clarence. The Spayne family, associated with London and Kent also intermarried with the Wilfords from the same area. Beaumont was a protegee of Oliver King, who was also from the London merchant community. We have never established exactly who Ralph Wilford was, but we speculated that Thomas Beaumont may have been in a position to provide information about him. Also, Beaumont's change from academia to prestigious ecclesiastical appointments coincides with the Warbeck crisis and since his sister was married to Brampton, he was likely to have been in a position to provide valuable information about PW.
Nico






On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 19:58:48 BST, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 15:40:45
Doug Stamate

Marie,

Then legally, and constitutionally, the crown was even then considered to not be the monarch's personal property and something the monarch could leave to whomever he chose? So, even though the crown was inheritable, it wasn't a personal inheritance (such as money or property), and if someone other than the closest heir claimed the throne, that claim could be accepted by the royal Council/Parliament/the Three Estates depending on the circumstances.

Doug

Marie wrote:

To Brian's last point, although addressed to Doug:

When I was looking into this I couldn't find anything to support the oft-repeated claim that Richard II had recognised the Mortimers as his heirs, at least not consistently (to that extent I agree with Ian Mortimer, though even her I would quibble over some of the detail). But, like Ian Mortimer's Edward III indenture, this is a red herring since kings had no constitutional power to determine decisions made after their deaths (the same of naturally applies to Edward IV's codicil, though Richard may not have initially realised this - he did not become Protector until at least a week into May, when the Council decided to support this option).

Nowhere in the bill he put forward did the Duke of York made any reference to the wishes of Richard II. He simply rehearses the who-begat-whom going back to Henry III and concludes from it that, according to English custom (i. e., although he does not say so, the same custom that underpinned the Plantagenet claim to the French throne), he is the rightful heir.


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 16:39:06
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:
Just come up with a tiny smidgen this morning Mary et al in, of all places, the brochure to Jesus College, Oxford.
It's a deed from 1350 by Robert Vaughan, son of Roger Vaughan, gifting land to his brother Peter, a priest. The land is in Durstone which turns out to be two miles from Bredwardine and it's the first mention of a Robert.
Now as you know, there were two Roger Vaughans before 1415 (when the younger died). Some biographies have them both as sons of Walter Sais and Florence Bredwardine, others have them father and son. I tend to think the latter, because the elder Roger is only shown in the Visitations as having Roger the younger and a daughter. If he'd had sons Robert and Peter they not brother Roger the younger would have inherited.
So could the Robert, of Robert and Margaret on Monmouth have been the son of this Robert? That would make 'our' Thomas a cousin to Thomas of Tretower, which could make sense?

Marie cogitates:
The problem is that, in an age of large families, virtually every branch would end up re-using most if not all of the traditional family names. So, as Mary says, there are a lot of Thomases. There are loads of Walters/Watkyns. According to Hicks (Clarence, p. 151) in February 1478 Richard secured a grant for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.
NB. I've just noticed in my notes that a Thomas ap Roger Vaughan, bastard, of Tretower was indicted with Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower in 1486. So if Sir Thomas of Tretower's bastard brother and namesake was still living in 1486, he cannot have been the Sir Thomas Vaughan executed in 1483.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 16:55:56
mariewalsh2003

Mary wrote:

I vaguely remember commenting but I will look to see if I can find the original post as I cannot remember exactly what was said. I think it may have been about various places and their geography. I have however found some notes about the Herberts and their connections to the Vaughans. William Herbert ( made Earl of Pembroke and father of the William who married Katherine Plantagenet) would have been initially known as William ap William ap Thomas, his father being William ap Thomas, an adherent of R of Y. E4 rewarded the young William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronimic. His mother was Gwladys ferch Davydd Gam and her first husband was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine not Tretower. Her two sons by that marriage were brought up with her ap Thomas / Herbert sons.


Marie replies:

According to my notes on the Vaughans, Gwladus had three sons by Sir Rhosser Vaughan of Bredwardine - Watkyn, Thomas and Roger. Watkyn was given the main family seat of Bredwardine, Thomas got Hergest (near Kington) and Roger, the youngest, was left Tretower. So even going back that far gives a lot of Vaughan families scattered about the Welsh Marches. Thomas of Hergest may be the original of the Black Vaughan of Kington legend, the inspiration for Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles.

Of course, just because the parents of Sir Thomas (d. 1483) were buried at Monmouth Priory does not mean they necessarily lived at Monmouth itself. They do need further investigation.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 17:07:39
brian\_yorkist
Ian Mortimer has shown that the 1386 Parliament made March heir to the throne, that is Parliament, not the King.
The 1386 Parliament was hostile - to put it mildly - to Richard's government and secured the impeachment of his Chancellor, Suffolk. So it is entirely possible that Richard himself was not happy with the choice and this *might* explain why March was never advanced in title or precedence, which was wholly in Richard's gift. Parliament *may* have intended to fire another shot across the King's bows, so to speak.
What we have here is Parliament, as early as 1386, staking out its right to determine the succession in the absence of a direct heir. Whether (at the time) it was competent to do so is a matter of opinion. My guess is that the back rooms of Richard II's court would have debated the matter as vigorously as we are currently debating Brexit. The Westminster Chronicle has absolutely no doubt at all March was heir - he goes out of his way to deny the Lancastrian claim.
By 1397-98 Richard II was all-powerful. He appears to have loathed Bolingbroke with a searing passion, and there is some evidence that he no longer trusted March. What his intentions regarding the succession were we can but guess. He could certainly have put a Bill through Parliament had he so chosen. But the Lancastrians were so powerful in land and resources that it would - in any event short of Gaunt dying and Bolingbroke getting killed in a horse traffic accident or whatever - have been all but impossible to exclude them from power anyway.
Brian W.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 17:12:16
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Just wanted to say that I agree these were attempts to square the circle, politically-speaking, when all political authority was deemed to come from a monarch who held that position for life! I suppose it all depends on who has the power to decide who the king/queen is to be, doesn't it? Prior to the Confessor, that power was held by the English nobles/notables. However, from William the Conqueror down to Anne, the accepted method of transmitting the crown was via an inherited claim, usually father to son, but not exclusively so. Once Parliament became involved, a return to a modified form of the pre-Confessor method was made, with those having a Parliamentary vote being added to the nobles/notables. Even then, once a choice was made, the Hanoverian George I, succession reverted to inheritance. The period we're looking at, OTOH, was one where, while the nobles/notables were quite powerful, they were constrained, or so it seems to me, by the precedent established by William the Conqueror in making who sat on the throne solely a matter of a person's relationship to the previous monarch. Once that precedent was established and accepted, the problem became one of how do you replace a king deemed, for whatever reason/s, unfit to rule? One of the king's main responsibilities was maintaining the rule of law, yet there was no legal method of reigning in a king. It took another two centuries of to-ing and fro-ing, before it became accepted that the monarch ruled with Parliament as a junior partner, and another century before the roles were reversed and it was Parliament officially ruling with the monarch becoming the junior partner, so to speak. By the end of his reign, Richard II had demonstrated that he viewed himself as the only source of political authority in the kingdom; even going so far as to set up a committee with all the powers of Parliament, a committee whose members were to be nominated by him and him alone, by the way. That left the rest of the country with the choice of either siding with Richard, and facing the prospect of never having any legal recourse against him again, or siding with Bolingbroke and maintaining the possibility of a loyal opposition that allowed for policy changes when necessary. Even if most of the following monarchs would never have viewed any opposition as loyal! As best I can tell, and it's only my personal view, but it looks as it Henry VI was the victim of his own incompetence. He tried to rule in the manner of kings before him, but simply wasn't up to job personally. Even making allowances for a natural inability to recognize one's own failings, Henry went further and refused to recognize any failings amongst his friends and family. The result was a steadying decrease in support to the point where there was enough opposition that made the consideration of replacing Henry thinkable. I sort of think comparing Edward III to either Richard II or Henry VI might be a case of apples and oranges? Edward's legal claim to the throne was never challenged and he seems to have been both a competent administrator and could accept opposition (even if he didn't like it). Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Marie. I too have read Mortimer (several times) and agree with you that it's far from clear. As you imply, whatever solution Henry chose he tied himself in another knot. Standing back from all the complex legal arguments about heredity, there is one big problem concerning the accessions of Henry IV and Edward IV and that is that the previous kings were still alive. Richard II was young enough to still have had a son, Henry VI had one and yet both were bullied out of the throne using excuses about whether or not primogeniture should have been applied. Would anyone have dared to do that to Edward III? That's why it's impossible to call on legal grounds really. You'd have to go right back to the childless Confessor and basically invalidate every king since. So in the end, whatever complex legal precedents you dig up it will always be the strong one who wins in the medieval period - and a strong man of course! As Matilda found out. H PS I don't dislike ROY I just think he got a taste of doing the job and believing he could do it better. He certainly had a better argument than HT!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 17:20:49
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:Sorry, I was rushing off last night and should have explained better. I'm not a genealogist per se, what I am interested in is the networks surrounding some of our key people. For example, what throws together people as disparate as Rotherham King,Forster,Morton, Hastings in June 1483? I doubt it was love of young Edward. . . . You can only usually start to find these networks by looking at family links and they take you outwards to others. If you look at the October 1483 rebels I don't think I've come across a single stand alone person; they either have shared families or shared grudges.
Marie repliesSorry, I too was rushing off and dashed out my last two posts yesterday. I'm not at all saying that family links weren't important, and don't illuminate rebel groupings, only that you can't assume someone who was never accused of involvement in a particular plot would have been involved in it - and on a particular side - because they shared some family ties with others known to have been involved. If that were the case, Clarence would never have rebelled against Edward IV, Edward would never have executed Clarence, and Ricard would never have deposed his nephew. If you allow broad enough family ties (and in the case of the Beaumonts we don't know the exact nature of them because we lack a reference to Margaret and Thomas' father), and enough different plots over a long enough time period, then the hits are going to be easier to make and less likely to be relevant. My position, to make it clear, is that yes, I do look into people's family background, and I do think it relevant when people involved in a particular rebel cause turn out to be closely related to each other. It helps explain what brought them together. All I'm saying is you can't reverse this process and extend the list of rebels by assuming other relatives not named in any sources must also have been involved. And identifying family groupings only begs a new question, which is what brought that particular kinship group to risk their lives in that particular political cause?Churchmen were not usually strongly motivated by family ties, and there is nothing to link the families of Rotherham, King and Morton to each other. When we're dealing with people such as these, who have been working close to each other and the ruling family, I really don't think you can dismiss the impact of personal relationships. Forster had been Queen Elizabeth's Treasurer and Receiver-General in the late 1460s. Later on, he'd been a yeoman of the Chamber and yeoman of the Crown, and shared the stewardship of St. Albans Abbey with Lord Hastings. So he would have known King Edward and his younger children personally, and the Queen, and Lord Hastings, so could well have got sucked into a plot between Hastings and the queen if good enough rewards were promised. Richard was someone he probably didn't know well at all and who probably overlooked him. So that's a lot to work with without invoking any family connections.
Hilary wrote:And what had Vaughan done that warranted execution?
Marie:Well, you may remember from last year that I came to the conclusion that Rivers Vaughan and Grey almost certainly didn't all travel with Edward V from Ludlow. Vaughan, the young king's chamberlain, would certainly have accompanied him from Ludlow, but we know from ?Mancini that Grey had travelled up from London, presumably bringing whatever troops the Queen and Dorset had been able to raise. After the dissolution of Parliament, Rivers had gone to his estates around the Wash (mainly his manor of Middleton outside King's Lynn, but h also made visits to Walsingham), and he was still there in late March. I see no reason to suppose that he was not still there in mid April. This would certainly explain why a letter from the King was handed to the Mayor and council of King's Lynn on 24 April announcing that he, Edward, was setting off for London to get himself crowned and then rule on his own account, and forbidding them to take instructions to the contrary from anyone, "no matter what estate, degree or condition he be of."From this I conclude that Rivers probably brought his own force from his estates in the East Midlands, and that these three forces converged on Stony Stratford under their separate leaders, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey. For me, this makes everything fall into place - Rivers didn't pass through Northampton with the King then go back again to meet Richard. Vaughan and Grey weren't followers in Rivers' army rather unjustly targeted by Richard. All three were equally culpable leaders of the army that had mustered around Stony Stratford to (as he claimed) attack and kill him.
On a completely different subject - all I would say about Alice Montagu's case, without looking into it further, is:-1) Someone who was in the room at Middleham when she is supposed to have said what she said informed on her;2) Someone, or some few persons, would have been granted her confiscated estates - that would be easy to check.1 & 2 may or may not have been the same people. She could have been informed on by a disgruntled servant, for instance, whose reward may have been quite paltry, and other members of the court party may have divided the spoils that came their way as a result.On thing perhaps worth checking is whether Alice (and her husband - his name would have been on the charges as well) was pursuing anyone at law who might have been glad to bring her down, but that might take a great deal of work to ascertain.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 17:21:17
Doug Stamate
Thanks! As I said, it likely doesn't doesn't matter, but... Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug 1456. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 17:24:09
Doug Stamate
I simply must start looking at the times messages were sent! Hilary wrote: Ha Doug you've just read my other reply :) :) H On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 16:13:54 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, re your family political point I agree entirely. Sir Thomas Cooke's son fought for Richard at Bosworth! But families do help us to understand the world in which people lived. And as with all, you like them or you hate them, often in equal measure. I may take up your challenge. Incidentally forgot to say that Sir Ralph Josselyns's second wife was the sister of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. So we have Beaumont and Brampton and Barley...... Doug here: Beaumont, Brampton and Barley, oh my! (Sorry about that, but I couldn't reisist! It was just too much like Lions, tigers and bears..oh my! I do agree that familial relationships give an excellent place to start when it comes to sussing out who supported whom, but further than that I'm hesitant to go. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 20:14:24
mariewalsh2003

For the link to the Monmouth document - thanks Hilary, you're a gem. The image is fuzzy, deliberately so probably, but I copied it on to my computer and enhanced it as much as I could, and there's no doubt that the names are Robert and Margaret, and they are Sir Thomas' father and mother respectively. Robert is an esquire, if that helps.

Probably not worth spending money on the original, then?

Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 20:24:03
mariewalsh2003

Doug asked:

Then legally, and constitutionally, the crown was even then considered to not be the monarch's personal property and something the monarch could leave to whomever he chose? So, even though the crown was inheritable, it wasn't a personal inheritance (such as money or property), and if someone other than the closest heir claimed the throne, that claim could be accepted by the royal Council/Parliament/the Three Estates depending on the circumstances.


Marie answers:

No, the crown was not personal property, and there was always an elective element in the succession. This is why it was decided that Richard II's abdication and replacement by Bolingbroke needed to be done in parliament, and why Edward IV and Richard III both waited until they'd been asked three times by a crowd of the chief citizens before accepting the crown. But it was also a hereditary monarchy so there had to be an hereditary basis for any candidature. There isn't a single instance I can think of where the new king, no matter how poor his credentials, doesn't make a fist of claiming to be the right heir by inheritance. Henry IV was doing this, even though it looks as though he was relying on a false genealogy. Whether he failed to state in parliament the details of his right line of descent from Henry III, or did state them but this was edited out for the parliament rolls, I guess we'll never know, but the committee of doctors shows how important it was for the appearances to be legal.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 20:36:51
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

I would be interested in looking at the Monmouth document as I have never read the original. Marie, Could you post it in the files? I had thought that 'Robert' may have been a error and the entry should have read 'Roger,' and 'Margaret' could have been a reference to Roger of Tretower's second wife, Margaret Audley. Another possibility was that Robert may have been the son of Roger and Thomas was his son, the wrong generation but still of the same family.


Marie replies:

I'll put in the order, but as you will know from previous times I've done this, orders from TNA take about 4 weeks start to finish. I'll post it to files as soon as I have it, and I'll also post a transcription. The likeliest thing is it will say exactly what it's been claimed to say, but at least then we'll know for sure.

If these were the parents of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) as the document apparently states, then Margaret cannot have been Sir Roger's second wife, Margaret Audley, as Margaret Audley's first husband, Lord Powys, did not die until 1466.

I'm sure there is some blood link between Sir Thomas (d. 1483) and the Vaughans of Tretower, but we cannot second guess what it was. As I have just shown in a post a couple of hours ago, Richard himself had a Vaughan servant whose father was called Robert - his father was Ivan (Ieuan, I guess, so may also be recorded as John).


Nico:

I have done other genealogy on the Vaughan family along with other families in Wales and the Marches. They are extremely prolific and there are many branches. The name can be simply be an anglicization of Fychan and there a lot of unrelated families, but the Vaughans that you find in high places are likely to be related to the Bredwardine/Tretower group in some way.


Marie:

Prolific they certainly are, and aside from those who stayed in Wales or the border area, Richard himself employed a few Vaughans, none of whom I've been able to place on a tree as yet.

The surname is indeed an anglicization of Fychan (or Vychan, as more likely written in medieval Welsh) meaning small, and o judge by the Visitation you have linked, even the main branch continued to spell their name Vychan in Welsh-language documents.

Thanks for the Visitation, withi its footnotes; as you probably know, in general I don't like using visitations for 15th-century genealogy, unless they are very early examples, because mostly they're too late to be reliable and they don't even give you dates for each generation, but they're something to start with.

The list in Warkworth is interesting, but it's fairly inaccurate as regards who was killed and who survived, so I don't know how much reliance to place on the names per se. The footnote that shows Ann, "sol. eyre [sole heir?] Syr Tomas Vychan off Pwmfrett" marrying Sir John Wgan or Organ is interesting, though, as Sir Thomas Vaughan of Pontefract can only be the one executed there in 1483, and I was not aware of this daughter.


Nico wrote:

I have been looking through some older posts. The Beaumont and Philip Malpas reference are under a large section called 'John Bonauntre of London' which goes back several months from last summer to early this year. Unfortunately, Yahoo deleted some of this section automatically, so some posts may have been lost (I don't know if it was just my account). Hilary traced the Beaumont/Bonauntres back to the city of London through Thomas Beaumont's mother Emme Spayne. It wasn't certain exactly how the precise family tree worked in relation to Thomas and Margaret Brampton, but there was a pattern of marriages and linked families that strongly suggested that they were descendants of the Bonauntres who were tapicers and chandlers in 14th century London, who left wills citing links to Essex and Kent. There were also some Bonauntres of Crewkerne in Somerset, who may have served Clarence. The Spayne family, associated with London and Kent also intermarried with the Wilfords from the same area. Beaumont was a protegee of Oliver King, who was also from the London merchant community. We have never established exactly who Ralph Wilford was, but we speculated that Thomas Beaumont may have been in a position to provide information about him. Also, Beaumont's change from academia to prestigious ecclesiastical appointments coincides with the Warbeck crisis and since his sister was married to Brampton, he was likely to have been in a position to provide valuable information about PW.


Marie replies:

This is after I had dipped out of the discussions on the Beamonts because I couldn't agree with the direction they were taking. In fact, it was me, on the earlier thread, who identified Emme Spayne as a Londoner, and thus Margaret's Beaumont family as probably also being from London. There was nothing to show that the London Beamonts and Bonauntres (whose names would have been pronounced quite differently - Bay(a)-mont and Bon-ahn-tray respectively) were the same family, and I must be honest that I believe the chances of that being so to be absolutely negligible. I don't want to fall out with anybody over this, but that was, and remains, my position.

I've also got a very large file on Clarence, listing a number of his servants, and no Bonauntres amongst them. Spayne would have been Emma's last husband, and therefore only Margaret's stepfather, but a Wilford link, if close enough, would be interesting in connection with PW. I think there's something on the Wilfords in JAH's book on Edward of Warwick and the Simnel business, isn't there?




Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-08 22:28:18
Hilary Jones
Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation. H
On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 20:20:01 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

For the link to the Monmouth document - thanks Hilary, you're a gem. The image is fuzzy, deliberately so probably, but I copied it on to my computer and enhanced it as much as I could, and there's no doubt that the names are Robert and Margaret, and they are Sir Thomas' father and mother respectively. Robert is an esquire, if that helps.

Probably not worth spending money on the original, then?

Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 09:53:36
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, I (very sadly) was thinking of this overnight.
You see I don't think, however much anyone like Henry IV scratched around, they could ever legalise their own position.
That's quite frankly because in an Absolute Monarchy there's no Separation of Powers which allows validation of laws/precedents. As you rightly say, after the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament in the seventeenth century and the Act of Succession it was the Judiciary who could interpret the Law and Parliament endorse it. In 'our' period and before Parliament had no teeth and the Judiciary were the tools of the King - they were the King's judges (still are).
It's best summed up by Lord Justice Markham who told Edward IV that those accused of treason did not get a valid trial because they were being tried in the Courts of the intended victim. Edward gulped and sacked him but he was right. So any Parliament or Judiciary endorsing a claim to the throne by someone who had already taken it was obeying their new master.
And that of course has actually damaged our Richard. He was in fact offered the throne before he took it, but his detractors say he must have obtained the offer by force. So to remove an ineffective king you had to quite simply be more powerful than them. Once you had the throne nothing could be done except the mounting of a contra coup. And all these arguments about relationships, precedent and entitlement were a superfluous way of making it look more acceptable to the outside world as HT well knew. H
On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 17:20:06 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just wanted to say that I agree these were attempts to square the circle, politically-speaking, when all political authority was deemed to come from a monarch who held that position for life! I suppose it all depends on who has the power to decide who the king/queen is to be, doesn't it? Prior to the Confessor, that power was held by the English nobles/notables. However, from William the Conqueror down to Anne, the accepted method of transmitting the crown was via an inherited claim, usually father to son, but not exclusively so. Once Parliament became involved, a return to a modified form of the pre-Confessor method was made, with those having a Parliamentary vote being added to the nobles/notables. Even then, once a choice was made, the Hanoverian George I, succession reverted to inheritance. The period we're looking at, OTOH, was one where, while the nobles/notables were quite powerful, they were constrained, or so it seems to me, by the precedent established by William the Conqueror in making who sat on the throne solely a matter of a person's relationship to the previous monarch. Once that precedent was established and accepted, the problem became one of how do you replace a king deemed, for whatever reason/s, unfit to rule? One of the king's main responsibilities was maintaining the rule of law, yet there was no legal method of reigning in a king. It took another two centuries of to-ing and fro-ing, before it became accepted that the monarch ruled with Parliament as a junior partner, and another century before the roles were reversed and it was Parliament officially ruling with the monarch becoming the junior partner, so to speak. By the end of his reign, Richard II had demonstrated that he viewed himself as the only source of political authority in the kingdom; even going so far as to set up a committee with all the powers of Parliament, a committee whose members were to be nominated by him and him alone, by the way. That left the rest of the country with the choice of either siding with Richard, and facing the prospect of never having any legal recourse against him again, or siding with Bolingbroke and maintaining the possibility of a loyal opposition that allowed for policy changes when necessary. Even if most of the following monarchs would never have viewed any opposition as loyal! As best I can tell, and it's only my personal view, but it looks as it Henry VI was the victim of his own incompetence. He tried to rule in the manner of kings before him, but simply wasn't up to job personally. Even making allowances for a natural inability to recognize one's own failings, Henry went further and refused to recognize any failings amongst his friends and family. The result was a steadying decrease in support to the point where there was enough opposition that made the consideration of replacing Henry thinkable. I sort of think comparing Edward III to either Richard II or Henry VI might be a case of apples and oranges? Edward's legal claim to the throne was never challenged and he seems to have been both a competent administrator and could accept opposition (even if he didn't like it). Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Marie. I too have read Mortimer (several times) and agree with you that it's far from clear. As you imply, whatever solution Henry chose he tied himself in another knot. Standing back from all the complex legal arguments about heredity, there is one big problem concerning the accessions of Henry IV and Edward IV and that is that the previous kings were still alive. Richard II was young enough to still have had a son, Henry VI had one and yet both were bullied out of the throne using excuses about whether or not primogeniture should have been applied. Would anyone have dared to do that to Edward III? That's why it's impossible to call on legal grounds really. You'd have to go right back to the childless Confessor and basically invalidate every king since. So in the end, whatever complex legal precedents you dig up it will always be the strong one who wins in the medieval period - and a strong man of course! As Matilda found out. H PS I don't dislike ROY I just think he got a taste of doing the job and believing he could do it better. He certainly had a better argument than HT!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 09:59:42
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, the rarity in this is the name 'Robert'. Now, as you say there are lots of Thomas's, Rogers, Williams. I've spent hours now and before looking for Robert Vaughan, Vaghan, Vichan, Fychan, Vachan and have only come up with the one in our document. And the Rogers are at Bredwardine/Tretower. Perhaps brother Peter might give us a clue if I can find him in the Lateran? H
On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 16:41:10 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
Just come up with a tiny smidgen this morning Mary et al in, of all places, the brochure to Jesus College, Oxford.
It's a deed from 1350 by Robert Vaughan, son of Roger Vaughan, gifting land to his brother Peter, a priest. The land is in Durstone which turns out to be two miles from Bredwardine and it's the first mention of a Robert.
Now as you know, there were two Roger Vaughans before 1415 (when the younger died). Some biographies have them both as sons of Walter Sais and Florence Bredwardine, others have them father and son. I tend to think the latter, because the elder Roger is only shown in the Visitations as having Roger the younger and a daughter. If he'd had sons Robert and Peter they not brother Roger the younger would have inherited.
So could the Robert, of Robert and Margaret on Monmouth have been the son of this Robert? That would make 'our' Thomas a cousin to Thomas of Tretower, which could make sense?

Marie cogitates:
The problem is that, in an age of large families, virtually every branch would end up re-using most if not all of the traditional family names. So, as Mary says, there are a lot of Thomases. There are loads of Walters/Watkyns. According to Hicks (Clarence, p. 151) in February 1478 Richard secured a grant for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.
NB. I've just noticed in my notes that a Thomas ap Roger Vaughan, bastard, of Tretower was indicted with Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower in 1486. So if Sir Thomas of Tretower's bastard brother and namesake was still living in 1486, he cannot have been the Sir Thomas Vaughan executed in 1483.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 10:51:20
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, the rarity in this is the name 'Robert'. Now, as you say there are lots of Thomas's, Rogers, Williams. I've spent hours now and before looking for Robert Vaughan, Vaghan, Vichan, Fychan, Vachan and have only come up with the one in our document. And the Rogers are at Bredwardine/Tretower. Perhaps brother Peter might give us a clue if I can find him in the Lateran?


Marie answers:

Hi Hilary. You've evidently missed one of my other posts from yesterday in which I drew attention to a claim by Michael Hicks (Clarence, p. 51) that Richard secured a grant in 1478 for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.

Could this Richard ap Robert have been a brother of the Prince's chamberlain, maybe? Or had there been at least two Robert Vaughans in the previous generation whom we've not identified?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 11:10:07
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.


Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.


I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM - Correction

2019-08-09 12:10:21
mariewalsh2003


Obviously I meant "we know the quartered arms of" and "quarters 1 & 3". Also meant to say probably only the saltire inherited from father - the quartered arms may have been those of his mother. More haste, less speed.


Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 13:37:16
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Thanks Hilary for posting the Vaughan document. That was the one that was difficult to read because of the fading. I'll see what I can make out from the enlarged photo on my ipad, but since Marie says Robert and Margaret, perhaps it was a reference to father Robert, the father of Richard ap Robert ap Ivan (Ieuan/Yevan), and 'our' Thomas was Richard ap Robert's brother. I will see what I if there is anything on this family and have another look around the Vaughan's in general.
I have also made some astrological notes on Anne and Isabel, along with Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, Richard and Clarence, which I will post when I get a chance to write them up.
Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords. I wish I could have come up with more than a circumstantial connection. Initially I was convinced that there was some connection to the Beaumont's of Gittisham or the Lords Beaumont especially since Alcester (which was associated with earlier Beaumonts) was one of his parishes, but I couldn't find anything to connect them. I reached a dead end with this search, but I will still dig around if any new ideas or leads emerge.
Nico
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 11:10:16 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.


Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.


I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 13:37:39
mariewalsh2003

P. S. Hilary, there are also several Robert Vaughans in the 16th century. The name was clearly around between the 14th and 126th centuries. Why should we expect every single persons surnamed Vaughan in the 15th century to be well recorded? What you are talking about is rarity of records, which is not necessarily rarity of Roberts.


Also, the point I was making about the bastard Thomas of Tretower (as I'm sure you actually realised) is that you had put forward the possibility that Sir Thomas (d. 1483) might be the bastard brother Thomas that Sir Thomas of Tretower is said to have had, and that this theory was now disproved.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 14:02:14
Hilary Jones
I had indeed missed it! Thanks! BTW there is a Robert of Tretower son of Thomas and Joan Whitney but he's born in 1478 and too late. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 10:51:30 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, the rarity in this is the name 'Robert'. Now, as you say there are lots of Thomas's, Rogers, Williams. I've spent hours now and before looking for Robert Vaughan, Vaghan, Vichan, Fychan, Vachan and have only come up with the one in our document. And the Rogers are at Bredwardine/Tretower. Perhaps brother Peter might give us a clue if I can find him in the Lateran?


Marie answers:

Hi Hilary. You've evidently missed one of my other posts from yesterday in which I drew attention to a claim by Michael Hicks (Clarence, p. 51) that Richard secured a grant in 1478 for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.

Could this Richard ap Robert have been a brother of the Prince's chamberlain, maybe? Or had there been at least two Robert Vaughans in the previous generation whom we've not identified?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 14:10:33
Hilary Jones
Marie, this is the Jesus document. Can you enhance it any more?
https://www.alumniweb.ox.ac.uk/jesus/file/Jesus_College_Newsletter_MT16.pdf

H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 11:10:16 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.


Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.


I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 14:13:11
Hilary Jones
Pleasure Nico. I did some work on something else a little while ago and stumbled again on the Beaumonts of Devon. It led me to believe that there were more of them than mapped in the Visitations. I'll try and recall what it was. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 13:37:23 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Thanks Hilary for posting the Vaughan document. That was the one that was difficult to read because of the fading. I'll see what I can make out from the enlarged photo on my ipad, but since Marie says Robert and Margaret, perhaps it was a reference to father Robert, the father of Richard ap Robert ap Ivan (Ieuan/Yevan), and 'our' Thomas was Richard ap Robert's brother. I will see what I if there is anything on this family and have another look around the Vaughan's in general.
I have also made some astrological notes on Anne and Isabel, along with Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, Richard and Clarence, which I will post when I get a chance to write them up.
Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords. I wish I could have come up with more than a circumstantial connection. Initially I was convinced that there was some connection to the Beaumont's of Gittisham or the Lords Beaumont especially since Alcester (which was associated with earlier Beaumonts) was one of his parishes, but I couldn't find anything to connect them. I reached a dead end with this search, but I will still dig around if any new ideas or leads emerge.
Nico
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 11:10:16 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.


Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.


I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 14:22:32
Hilary Jones
Re your second point Marie, yes I agree.
Why I was asking whether Robert Vaughan was an armiger (as is said in the article translation) is that you would have expected some mention of him in a Visitation I'd have thought? I do think there's a possibility that Thomas was descended from a younger son of Rossier Hen - Roger the Elder, indeed one French genealogical article has a Robert between the two Rogers - Roger the younger being the one who died at Agincourt.
The Welsh genealogy before Gwalter Sais or Gwalter ap Rossier Vaghan (as he's also known) is very confusing. We have the Baskervilles there as spouse of Roger ap Ieuan Vaghan; I'm honestly not sure what is legend or a mixture of legend and truth and it's not even clear whether the elder Roger died in 1377 or 1403. I've seen both. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 13:37:44 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P. S. Hilary, there are also several Robert Vaughans in the 16th century. The name was clearly around between the 14th and 126th centuries. Why should we expect every single persons surnamed Vaughan in the 15th century to be well recorded? What you are talking about is rarity of records, which is not necessarily rarity of Roberts.


Also, the point I was making about the bastard Thomas of Tretower (as I'm sure you actually realised) is that you had put forward the possibility that Sir Thomas (d. 1483) might be the bastard brother Thomas that Sir Thomas of Tretower is said to have had, and that this theory was now disproved.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 14:58:20
Doug Stamate
Brian, I'm presuming that, although Richard II issued the writs for that Parliament, the elections to it were managed by his opponents? Even so, it's also apparent that Parliament had attained sufficient status so that its involvement in the succession was considered necessary. In a different post I mentioned that I'd read that Richard II had, during his supremacy in the late 1390s, gotten Parliament to establish a committee consisting of members of Parliament nominated by Richard with said committee having all the powers of Parliament. IOW, once established, that committee would allow the king to forgo the necessity of ever calling another Parliament. Thus placing Parliament in a position similar to the French Three Estates. I do find it strange that Richard didn't try to clip Bolingbroke's power by only returning part of the Lancaster inheritance. Trying to retain all of Bolingbroke's inheritance was, in the absence of any actual treason, a step too far in the eyes of too many of those whose support for Richard was, at best, lukewarm. If all it took for the king to take one's properties was a personal dislike on the part of the king... Doug Brian wrote: Ian Mortimer has shown that the 1386 Parliament made March heir to the throne, that is Parliament, not the King. The 1386 Parliament was hostile - to put it mildly - to Richard's government and secured the impeachment of his Chancellor, Suffolk. So it is entirely possible that Richard himself was not happy with the choice and this *might* explain why March was never advanced in title or precedence, which was wholly in Richard's gift. Parliament *may* have intended to fire another shot across the King's bows, so to speak. What we have here is Parliament, as early as 1386, staking out its right to determine the succession in the absence of a direct heir. Whether (at the time) it was competent to do so is a matter of opinion. My guess is that the back rooms of Richard II's court would have debated the matter as vigorously as we are currently debating Brexit. The Westminster Chronicle has absolutely no doubt at all March was hei r - he goes out of his way to deny the Lancastrian claim. By 1397-98 Richard II was all-powerful. He appears to have loathed Bolingbroke with a searing passion, and there is some evidence that he no longer trusted March. What his intentions regarding the succession were we can but guess. He could certainly have put a Bill through Parliament had he so chosen. But the Lancastrians were so powerful in land and resources that it would - in any event short of Gaunt dying and Bolingbroke getting killed in a horse traffic accident or whatever - have been all but impossible to exclude them from power anyway.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 16:15:27
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I had indeed missed it! Thanks! BTW there is a Robert of Tretower son of Thomas and Joan Whitney but he's born in 1478 and too late.


Marie:

According to my notes the Thomas Vaughan who married Joan Whitney was one of the umpteen children of Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine, so a first cousin of Sir Thomas of Tretower.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 16:50:15
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.


Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-09 16:54:33
mariewalsh2003

Hilary said:

Why I was asking whether Robert Vaughan was an armiger (as is said in the article translation) is that you would have expected some mention of him in a Visitation I'd have thought?


Marie:

Bear in mind that the Visitations were only concerned with the ancestors of living armigers. Sir Thomas Vaughan the Chamberlain only had a daughter, so unless Robert had other sons to carry on his armigerous line (which is of course possible, though Sir Thomas hasn't exactly left us a trail suggesting that this might be so), then there would be no family for the Visitations to pick up.

By the way, I've copied the Jesus document (Ah! that Jesus. ..) and tried to enhance it but it's really no better, so if you're interested then I would say you'd need to get hold of a proper copy, although I don't know that it will tell you more than the summary in the newsletter.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 06:43:26
mariewalsh2003



Further update of the "Jesus document". I thought I'd take another look at a bit more leisure. I can confirm that it's not got good enough resolution for a proper transcription - all that happens when you blow it up is that you get a screen full of pixels, and there's no way of enhancing that because it builds in distortions.


However, it is legible in a general way after a bit of staring, and I have been able to check the names. There is no Robert.

Peter is son of Roger.

The grantor is Roger ap Roger Vaghan of Dorston. He is named several times so there is no doubt. (Perhaps the easiest place to see it is at the end of line 4, Rog'o fil' Rog'i - the er is represented by an omission mark each time. This would translate into English as "to Roger son of Roger" - vaghan [or possibly vachan] is the first word on line 5.)

Roberto/ Roberti, incidentally, would be abbreviated as Robto/Robti with a horizontal bar over the top, and would look quite different.


Anyhow, on this occasion Roger has been misread as Robert!


Dorstone was one of the properties of the Vaughans who later owned Bredwardine, so Roger son of Roger fits in with the genealogies.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 10:07:27
Hilary Jones
Yes, that's right, he seems to have been number 2. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 16:15:33 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I had indeed missed it! Thanks! BTW there is a Robert of Tretower son of Thomas and Joan Whitney but he's born in 1478 and too late.


Marie:

According to my notes the Thomas Vaughan who married Joan Whitney was one of the umpteen children of Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine, so a first cousin of Sir Thomas of Tretower.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 10:13:42
Hilary Jones
Thank you so much. You see I did spot the 'Rogo fil Rogi' and I began to get worried so I thought I'd send it to the expert! :) So it kills one myth that Roger 1415 was the brother of Roger Hen.
Oh Oxford, you've had this for 600 plus years and got the translation wrong!!
BTW forgot to add earlier (things coming back a bit now) that in at least one TNA document Thomas Vaughan is referred to as 'alias Llandaff'. H


On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 06:43:34 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Further update of the "Jesus document". I thought I'd take another look at a bit more leisure. I can confirm that it's not got good enough resolution for a proper transcription - all that happens when you blow it up is that you get a screen full of pixels, and there's no way of enhancing that because it builds in distortions.


However, it is legible in a general way after a bit of staring, and I have been able to check the names. There is no Robert.

Peter is son of Roger.

The grantor is Roger ap Roger Vaghan of Dorston. He is named several times so there is no doubt. (Perhaps the easiest place to see it is at the end of line 4, Rog'o fil' Rog'i - the er is represented by an omission mark each time. This would translate into English as "to Roger son of Roger" - vaghan [or possibly vachan] is the first word on line 5.)

Roberto/ Roberti, incidentally, would be abbreviated as Robto/Robti with a horizontal bar over the top, and would look quite different.


Anyhow, on this occasion Roger has been misread as Robert!


Dorstone was one of the properties of the Vaughans who later owned Bredwardine, so Roger son of Roger fits in with the genealogies.



Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 10:14:37
Hilary Jones
Yes we've still never found that deed that groups Emme Spaigne and Thomas Beaumont together, as in his Will. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 17:31:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.


Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 13:42:35
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote: Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?
Yes, that is correct. I had a look at the info on the manors in Alcester and it there are lots of Beauchamps and no Beaumonts. I can't remember where the original reference was from. The Beaumont lands were a few miles away, so it was probably just an available parish for Thomas Beaumont with no particular connection to him. I would be interested in whatever you have discovered about the Beaumonts. There must be a lot more than are listed on the visitations, which are concerned with the most socially significant family members. I remember spotting a Henry in the Gittisham branch who would be the right age group, but I couldn't find anything more on him.
As for the Vaughan document, if it is Roger ap Roger, then that would fit Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, and possibly lend some credibility to the Prior Coch story. Hopefully a clearer version of the document will give some more information. Another problem is that we don't know the precise age of Thomas Vaughan or Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower. If RV was born around the turn of the century and TV in the 1420s, then it would be a good fit.

Nico
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 10:16:12 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes we've still never found that deed that groups Emme Spaigne and Thomas Beaumont together, as in his Will. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 17:31:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.


Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 15:25:44
ricard1an
Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?
Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 15:48:46
Hilary Jones
Nico, the Roger Vaughan who was executed at Chepstow in 1471 has to have been born before 1415 as his dad, another Roger, was killed at Agincourt. I haven't found an IPM for him yet, which could give the age of his son. H
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 13:42:41 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Marie wrote: Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?
Yes, that is correct. I had a look at the info on the manors in Alcester and it there are lots of Beauchamps and no Beaumonts. I can't remember where the original reference was from. The Beaumont lands were a few miles away, so it was probably just an available parish for Thomas Beaumont with no particular connection to him. I would be interested in whatever you have discovered about the Beaumonts. There must be a lot more than are listed on the visitations, which are concerned with the most socially significant family members. I remember spotting a Henry in the Gittisham branch who would be the right age group, but I couldn't find anything more on him.
As for the Vaughan document, if it is Roger ap Roger, then that would fit Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, and possibly lend some credibility to the Prior Coch story. Hopefully a clearer version of the document will give some more information. Another problem is that we don't know the precise age of Thomas Vaughan or Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower. If RV was born around the turn of the century and TV in the 1420s, then it would be a good fit.

Nico
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 10:16:12 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes we've still never found that deed that groups Emme Spaigne and Thomas Beaumont together, as in his Will. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 17:31:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.


Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 16:57:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Well, the phrase was King in Parliament wasn't it? Which, or so it seems to me, was all that saved England from going the route of absolutist France. As long as Parliament was around, and relatively free, any monarch had to take it into his/her consideration when it came to policy matters; especially if those policies involved an increased need for money. Which also, again my personal view, made it necessary for any successful English, later British, monarch to recognize the difference between the theory/claim of absolute royal authority and the reality that power wasn't concentrated solely in the hands of the monarch. Originally that meant getting enough of the nobility/notables on one's side, but by the middle of the 15th century, Parliament, or rather those elected to Parliament, was rapidly gaining in importance. Otherwise, what was to be gained by having one's right to rule verified by Parliament? Of course, IMO anyway, the biggest step towards Parliamentary primacy was when the Commons was recognized as having, not only the right to vote on money bills, but also the right to examine the books and see how those monies were spent. I do find it interesting that it's not until the Reformation and religion enters the picture, that Parliament, especially the Commons, seemed quite willing to let the monarch set the policies and see that they were carried. But maybe that's just me? At any rate, an independent Parliament, even a semi-independent Parliament, required every monarch to do his/her best to ensure that Royal policies were acceptable to a majority of the Lords and Commons. And that included any right to the throne itself. Doug Sorry for being so long-winded, but once I get started... Hilary wrote:  Hi Doug, I (very sadly) was thinking of this overnight. You see I don't think, however much anyone like Henry IV scratched around, they could ever legalise their own position. That's quite frankly because in an Absolute Monarchy there's no Separation of Powers which allows validation of laws/precedents. As you rightly say, after the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament in the seventeenth century and the Act of Succession it was the Judiciary who could interpret the Law and Parliament endorse it. In 'our' period and before Parliament had no teeth and the Judiciary were the tools of the King - they were the King's judges (still are). It's best summed up by Lord Justice Markham who told Edward IV that those accused of treason did not get a valid trial because they were being tried in the Courts of the intended victim. Edward gulped and sacked him but he was right. So any Parliament or Judiciary endorsing a claim to the throne by someone who had already taken it was obeying their new master. And that of course has actually damaged our Richard. He was in fact offered the throne before he took it, but his detractors say he must have obtained the offer by force. So to remove an ineffective king you had to quite simply be more powerful than them. Once you had the throne nothing could be done except the mounting of a contra coup. And all these arguments about relationships, precedent and entitlement were a superfluous way of making it look more acceptable to the outside world as HT well knew. On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 17:20:06 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: Hilary, Just wanted to say that I agree these were attempts to square the circle, politically-speaking, when all political authority was deemed to come from a monarch who held that position for life! I suppose it all depends on who has the power to decide who the king/queen is to be, doesn't it? Prior to the Confessor, that power was held by the English nobles/notables. However, from William the Conqueror down to Anne, the accepted method of transmitting the crown was via an inherited claim, usually father to son, but not exclusively so. Once Parliament became involved, a return to a modified form of the pre-Confessor method was made, with those having a Parliamentary vote being added to the nobles/notables. Even then, once a choice was made, the Hanoverian George I, succession reverted to inheritance. The period we're looking at, OTOH, was one where, while the nobles/notables were quite powerful, they were constrained, or so it seems to me, by the precedent established by William the Conqueror in making who sat on the throne solely a matter of a person's relationship to the previous monarch. Once that precedent was established and accepted, the problem became one of how do you replace a king deemed, for whatever reason/s, unfit to rule? One of the king's main responsibilities was maintaining the rule of law, yet there was no legal method of reigning in a king. It took another two centuries of to-ing and fro-ing, before it became accepted that the monarch ruled with Parliament as a junior partner, and another century before the roles were reversed and it was Parliament officially ruling with the monarch becoming the junior partner, so to speak. By the end of his reign, Richard II had demonstrated that he viewed himself as the only source of political authority in the kingdom; even going so far as to set up a committee with all the powers of Parliament, a committee whose members were to be nominated by him and him alone, by the way. That left the rest of the country with the choice of either siding with Richard, and facing the prospect of never having any legal recourse against him again, or siding with Bolingbroke and maintaining the possibility of a loyal opposition that allowed for policy changes when necessary. Even if most of the following monarchs would never have viewed any opposition as loyal! As best I can tell, and it's only my personal view, but it looks as it Henry VI was the victim of his own incompetence. He tried to rule in the manner of kings before him, but simply wasn't up to job personally. Even making allowances for a natural inability to recognize one's own failings, Henry went further and refused to recognize any failings amongst his friends and family. The result was a steadying decrease in support to the point where there was enough opposition that made the consideration of replacing Henry thinkable. I sort of think comparing Edward III to either Richard II or Henry VI might be a case of apples and oranges? Edward's legal claim to the throne was never challenged and he seems to have been both a competent administrator and could accept opposition (even if he didn't like it). Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Marie. I too have read Mortimer (several times) and agree with you that it's far from clear. As you imply, whatever solution Henry chose he tied himself in another knot. Standing back from all the complex legal arguments about heredity, there is one big problem concerning the accessions of Henry IV and Edward IV and that is that the previous kings were still alive. Richard II was young enough to still have had a son, Henry VI had one and yet both were bullied out of the throne using excuses about whether or not primogeniture should have been applied. Would anyone have dared to do that to Edward III? That's why it's impossible to call on legal grounds really. You'd have to go right back to the childless Confessor and basically invalidate every king since. So in the end, whatever complex legal precedents you dig up it will always be the strong one who wins in the medieval period - and a strong man of course! As Matilda found out. H PS I don't dislike ROY I just think he got a taste of doing the job and believing he could do it better. He certainly had a better argument than HT!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 16:59:09
mariewalsh2003


Which document refers to TV as alias Llandaff? The only mention I could see in the catalogue to TV and Llandaff in the same document is in the Monmouth doc, which involved the Bishop of Llandaff (Monmouth being in the diocese of Llandaff at that time).

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 17:04:01
Hilary Jones
Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online


So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 17:09:31
mariewalsh2003


Just an update on Richard's servant Richard ap Robert ap Ieuan Vaughan. I discovered I had a photograph of the document on my computer, from a session at TNA years back. It is actually a grant of English denizenship (warrant dated 20 February 1478). Then, by googling some of the phrases in the grant, I discovered that he got a regrant of this in February 1484, which was much more detailed about his rights, from which I presume that the first one had not stopped him having problems.

From the detail in the second grant, it seems he had children, and he was perhaps working for Richard in Wales as the grant specifies the rights he was to enjoy in a Welsh as well as an English context, and his exemption from feudal dues charged by Welsh lords.

Perhaps he was a brother of Sir Thomas, but he isn't named as an esquire or gentleman (or anything in particular) so it may not be the case.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-10 17:12:38
Hilary Jones
Just realised I needed a Robert not Thomas. But it is another trail! Sorry! H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 5:03 pm, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online


So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-11 10:47:47
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug,
I think you have vastly over-estimated Magna Carta. Yes, Parliaments were a useful tool when it came to raising taxation so that the unpopularity didn't fall on the monarch alone, but they were toothless, that is until that famous moment when the Speaker had 'neither eyes to see etc' for Charles I.
For a start members weren't elected, they were chosen. In fact it wasn't until the various Reform Acts of the nineteenth century that we got rid of Members representing places that didn't exist! And some kings. Edward included, ruled without Parliament for years. If you didn't like what Parliament said you got rid of it fast.
Because there was no written Constitution, the Law consisted of acts of parliament, judicial precedent and custom. The trouble was that acts of parliament were an expression of the monarch's wish and the judges who interpreted precedent and custom were the monarch's judges. So it was de facto an absolute monarchy, albeit cloaked in the myth of Magna Carta. What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough evidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, when the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties.
And all this of course is why 'new' nation states such as the US were at pains firstly to write things down and secondly to ensure that no one person would ever be in charge of everything.
In other words the 'Mother of all Parliaments' was a pretty imperfect one at this stage.
H (sorry to have been so long as well; it's a complex subject)
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 16:58:26 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Well, the phrase was King in Parliament wasn't it? Which, or so it seems to me, was all that saved England from going the route of absolutist France. As long as Parliament was around, and relatively free, any monarch had to take it into his/her consideration when it came to policy matters; especially if those policies involved an increased need for money. Which also, again my personal view, made it necessary for any successful English, later British, monarch to recognize the difference between the theory/claim of absolute royal authority and the reality that power wasn't concentrated solely in the hands of the monarch. Originally that meant getting enough of the nobility/notables on one's side, but by the middle of the 15th century, Parliament, or rather those elected to Parliament, was rapidly gaining in importance. Otherwise, what was to be gained by having one's right to rule verified by Parliament? Of course, IMO anyway, the biggest step towards Parliamentary primacy was when the Commons was recognized as having, not only the right to vote on money bills, but also the right to examine the books and see how those monies were spent. I do find it interesting that it's not until the Reformation and religion enters the picture, that Parliament, especially the Commons, seemed quite willing to let the monarch set the policies and see that they were carried. But maybe that's just me? At any rate, an independent Parliament, even a semi-independent Parliament, required every monarch to do his/her best to ensure that Royal policies were acceptable to a majority of the Lords and Commons. And that included any right to the throne itself. Doug Sorry for being so long-winded, but once I get started... Hilary wrote:  Hi Doug, I (very sadly) was thinking of this overnight. You see I don't think, however much anyone like Henry IV scratched around, they could ever legalise their own position. That's quite frankly because in an Absolute Monarchy there's no Separation of Powers which allows validation of laws/precedents. As you rightly say, after the establishment of the supremacy of Parliament in the seventeenth century and the Act of Succession it was the Judiciary who could interpret the Law and Parliament endorse it. In 'our' period and before Parliament had no teeth and the Judiciary were the tools of the King - they were the King's judges (still are). It's best summed up by Lord Justice Markham who told Edward IV that those accused of treason did not get a valid trial because they were being tried in the Courts of the intended victim. Edward gulped and sacked him but he was right. So any Parliament or Judiciary endorsing a claim to the throne by someone who had already taken it was obeying their new master. And that of course has actually damaged our Richard. He was in fact offered the throne before he took it, but his detractors say he must have obtained the offer by force. So to remove an ineffective king you had to quite simply be more powerful than them. Once you had the throne nothing could be done except the mounting of a contra coup. And all these arguments about relationships, precedent and entitlement were a superfluous way of making it look more acceptable to the outside world as HT well knew. On Thursday, 8 August 2019, 17:20:06 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: Hilary, Just wanted to say that I agree these were attempts to square the circle, politically-speaking, when all political authority was deemed to come from a monarch who held that position for life! I suppose it all depends on who has the power to decide who the king/queen is to be, doesn't it? Prior to the Confessor, that power was held by the English nobles/notables. However, from William the Conqueror down to Anne, the accepted method of transmitting the crown was via an inherited claim, usually father to son, but not exclusively so. Once Parliament became involved, a return to a modified form of the pre-Confessor method was made, with those having a Parliamentary vote being added to the nobles/notables. Even then, once a choice was made, the Hanoverian George I, succession reverted to inheritance. The period we're looking at, OTOH, was one where, while the nobles/notables were quite powerful, they were constrained, or so it seems to me, by the precedent established by William the Conqueror in making who sat on the throne solely a matter of a person's relationship to the previous monarch. Once that precedent was established and accepted, the problem became one of how do you replace a king deemed, for whatever reason/s, unfit to rule? One of the king's main responsibilities was maintaining the rule of law, yet there was no legal method of reigning in a king. It took another two centuries of to-ing and fro-ing, before it became accepted that the monarch ruled with Parliament as a junior partner, and another century before the roles were reversed and it was Parliament officially ruling with the monarch becoming the junior partner, so to speak. By the end of his reign, Richard II had demonstrated that he viewed himself as the only source of political authority in the kingdom; even going so far as to set up a committee with all the powers of Parliament, a committee whose members were to be nominated by him and him alone, by the way. That left the rest of the country with the choice of either siding with Richard, and facing the prospect of never having any legal recourse against him again, or siding with Bolingbroke and maintaining the possibility of a loyal opposition that allowed for policy changes when necessary. Even if most of the following monarchs would never have viewed any opposition as loyal! As best I can tell, and it's only my personal view, but it looks as it Henry VI was the victim of his own incompetence. He tried to rule in the manner of kings before him, but simply wasn't up to job personally. Even making allowances for a natural inability to recognize one's own failings, Henry went further and refused to recognize any failings amongst his friends and family. The result was a steadying decrease in support to the point where there was enough opposition that made the consideration of replacing Henry thinkable. I sort of think comparing Edward III to either Richard II or Henry VI might be a case of apples and oranges? Edward's legal claim to the throne was never challenged and he seems to have been both a competent administrator and could accept opposition (even if he didn't like it). Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Marie. I too have read Mortimer (several times) and agree with you that it's far from clear. As you imply, whatever solution Henry chose he tied himself in another knot. Standing back from all the complex legal arguments about heredity, there is one big problem concerning the accessions of Henry IV and Edward IV and that is that the previous kings were still alive. Richard II was young enough to still have had a son, Henry VI had one and yet both were bullied out of the throne using excuses about whether or not primogeniture should have been applied. Would anyone have dared to do that to Edward III? That's why it's impossible to call on legal grounds really. You'd have to go right back to the childless Confessor and basically invalidate every king since. So in the end, whatever complex legal precedents you dig up it will always be the strong one who wins in the medieval period - and a strong man of course! As Matilda found out. H PS I don't dislike ROY I just think he got a taste of doing the job and believing he could do it better. He certainly had a better argument than HT!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-11 13:37:40
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,

In response to your post to Doug, I don't think you're really in disagreement with each other, just looking at the facts from different angles. Yes, ultimately it was about who wielded the power - isn't it always, though, in any system? Observing constitutions, written or otherwise, is about a collective agreement that, although in the short term it is an unwanted brake on a leader's power, in the long run it helps avoid revolution and so keeps leaders safer in their beds. The fact that judges are appointees is a problem that has never been adequately resolved anywhere, not even under the American constitution. As soon as you have a leader unwilling to observe the conventions or the higher ideals of the constitution you have the possibility of abuse.


Obviously this was more the case with the 15thC political set-up than it is in modern democracies, but monarchs were foolish if they tried to ride roughshod over parliament, whose cooperation they needed for the granting of much-needed taxation - I think Doug is right on that one. Parliament wasn't quite as tame as has sometimes been made out - this is why kings who were experiencing dissent often tried to rule without parliament for as long as they could, and also why you see kings assenting to so many Bills initiated by the Commons that they probably weren't enthusiastic about. There are a couple of protectionist Acts passed by Richard's parliament, for instance, which appear to be the brainchildren of the London merchant community and about which Richard was probably unenthusiastic (he managed to get one of them revoked later, with the agreement of that same merchant community, because it was having unforeseen negative consequences), but these were people whom he could not afford to annoy.

Generally, we don't know what went on in Parliament, or how bolshy the members could be, but in the case of the first session of the 1485 parliament we have a journal kept by two MPs which shows that Henry faced a lot of opposition and disgruntlement in the Commons. Similarly, the Law Book entry on the issue of repealing TR shows that there was serious argument about that in the Lords. One thing we know from the Colchester journal is that Henry announced to parliament that he was abolishing the Court of Requests (something Richard had been working hard on formalising, and which Henry probably felt the same way about as Trump felt about Obamacare); the shock and disapproval of the MPs is evident in the journal, and we can assume there must have been very serious opposition to this proposal because the Court of Requests was not abolished, and in fact the formalisation process begun by Richard continued under the Tudors.

Election of MPs was far, far from perfect in the 15thC; it is certainly true that lords such as Rivers went about looking for constituencies in which to stick their own candidates; and some parliaments, like that of 1459, were deliberately rigged from the centre, but it did not yet suffer all the abuses of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. There were not yet the plethora of rotten boroughs, which were the result of demographic changes over the centuries since the constituencies had been set up.


This practical point, of enhancing long-term stability for the benefit of rulers as well as ruled, is why all the beneficiaries of all the depositions of the period 1399-1485 were keen to disguise the extent to which their ascent to the throne was the result of their superior power, and to observe the legal niceties with as much care as they could.


Hilary wrote:

"What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough evidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, when the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties."


Marie:

I'm afraid this is not what I was saying, and it was not the legal position. After the death of Henry V Parliament debated the terms of his will (specifically the codicils) regarding the government of England and France during the minority of his baby son. Henry had wanted Gloucester to have the tutela of the young king(wardship during his minority of him and his estate, meaning the country in this case - his actual ing was left to others) and to have specific charge of the defence of England; Bedford was to run France.

But parliament - albeit probably led by the caretaker council - objected to the tutela bit as it came from Roman law (and therefore did not fit with the unwritten English constitution), and wanted Gloucester to have only the defence of the realm, and that only until the King had been crowned. In order to make this happen, the parliament of 1422 ruled that a king had no right to confer the governance or rule of the land on anyone 'lenger than he lyved'. It was parliament who came up with the title of 'Protector' to encompass the powers for the defence of the realm that they wanted Gloucester to be confined to, and parliament who ruled that this must end after the king had been crowned.

This is all extremely well set out in Annette Carson's booklet on the offices of Protector and Constable.

So the wishes of the King died with him, legally, even if there was a will. Duke Humphrey was forced by Parliament to resign as Protector after little Henry's coronation on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to have someone running his affairs like that. This is why the Woodvilles were so keen to get Edward V crowned quickly, as they were relying on this precedent to end any idea Richard might have had of being appointed Protector. As the twelve-year-old Edward V stated in his letter to King's Lynn (written for him, perhaps?), he planned to rule in his own right from the outset since God had chosen to make him king, and was thus planning to go straight to London to be crowned. The invalidity of the will of a dead monarch with regard to the running of the country, and the short duration of a 1420s-style protectorate are reasons why traditionalist historians are not overly impressed with Richard's claim to run the country as Protector.

But I would say that another, later, precedent has been overlooked by historians, as it was overlooked by the Woodvilles in 1483, i.e. the precedent of the 1450s whereby parliament recognised the need for a Protector when a crowned king was incapable of running the country in person. Things had moved on.

So Richard did not exercise the office of Protector, or call himself that, until the caretaker Council had recognised him as such, which happened about 8-10 May if I recall. They were also agreed that he should continue to exercise the office after the coronation, until Edward V had reached an age of discretion. All this needed to be ratified by parliament, and it is clear from the speech Russell wrote in preparation for the parliament to be held immediately after Edward V's coronation that getting agreement for this was to be its main purpose.


Marie

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-11 17:25:13
mariewalsh2003
Nicholas wrote: I had a look at the info on the manors in Alcester and it there are lots of Beauchamps and no Beaumonts. I can't remember where the original reference was from. The Beaumont lands were a few miles away, so it was probably just an available parish for Thomas Beaumont with no particular connection to him. I would be interested in whatever you have discovered about the Beaumonts. There must be a lot more than are listed on the visitations, which are concerned with the most socially significant family members. I remember spotting a Henry in the Gittisham branch who would be the right age group, but I couldn't find anything more on him.
As for the Vaughan document, if it is Roger ap Roger, then that would fit Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, and possibly lend some credibility to the Prior Coch story. Hopefully a clearer version of the document will give some more information. Another problem is that we don't know the precise age of Thomas Vaughan or Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower. If RV was born around the turn of the century and TV in the 1420s, then it would be a good fit.


Marie replies:


I'm afraid I have no more information on the Beaumonts. I contributed whatever I could during the original discussion, and I have other projects I need to be working on so I'm afraid I can't spend any more time on these subjects at present. The main thing is to be careful not to force the evidence, to draw all the details from each document accurately, keep a careful record of these, and accept a blank for what it is. If you do that, and keep looking, you'll eventually know as much as anybody even if you don't have the full answer.


In your situation I'd stick with the London area for the moment as our brief look at the lords Beaumont and the West Country Beaumonts last year produced nothing. Not everything is online, and the best stuff online is mainly in the form of pdfs of out-of-copyright books of document transcripts. There is also much London material in the LMA that has never been published, included the copious journals kept by the city's Mayor and Council, bishops' registers and a couple of years worth of annulment cause papers from the period; and some livery company have archives that go back that far, so it's quite possible the information exists somewhere.


I know about Lord Beaumont at Alcester purely from my interest in Thomas Burdet. I don't recall reading of any Beaumont estate in the immediate area whilst I was researching Burdet, but any prominent Warwickshire Beaumonts will be somewhere in Christine Carpenter's weighty tome. The manor of Alcester was owned by Lord Beauchamp (the manor house, just outside the town, was later known as Beauchamp Court), then there was Arrow (Burdet) just to the west, Ragley (Rous) just beyond Arrow, Coughton (Throckmorton) a couple of miles to the north, but beyond that I couldn't say offhand.


What I was saying about detail again - the Jesus document is dated 1350 (I checked and this is correct) so it definitely isn't the Roger who married Matheu Goch's daughter, still less his son, Sir Roger of Tretower, though it will be the same family.

Incidentally, have you looked through all the free volumes of Archaeologia Cambrensis that are available online? That's where I found Richard ap Roger ap Ieuan Vaughan's second (1484) grant of English citizenship.




Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-11 17:34:19
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I'm not sure about that toothless charge. As a separate part of government, acting on its' own, perhaps yes. However, beginning with the Parliaments of Edward I, there are too many instances where Parliaments, certainly under the leadership of some noble or group of nobles, were able to rein in or even overturn various royal policies to say Parliament didn't have powers of its' own that any sensible monarch would take into consideration. It does appear to me, so there's that against it, that during this period in time, Parliament was definitely a junior partner, but one that could cause an awful lot of trouble. I quite agree that Parliaments were often (usually?) managed; at the same time, however, once called into session, the Members had a disturbing habit, disturbing for monarchs anyway, of making up their own minds, regardless of whether they were appointed knights or elected burgesses. The kings probably blamed the latter, but there are still enough instances of even the knights of the shires siding against the king so that's it's fairly safe to say they weren't just yes-men. Again, caveats need to applied, and usually the king could count on the support of those knights. Sort of an unofficial King's Party? There's certainly no argument that Edward did rule without Parliament whenever he could, but there's also the fact that, especially when money matters arose, even he realized the necessity of a Parliament. To that extent, the 100 Years' War was a serendipitous occurrence when it came to the growth of Parliament. Edward needed money for the wars, to get that money he had to raise taxes and, to raise those taxes, he had to call Parliaments, whether he wanted to or not. What kings did, or so it seems to me, was accept the necessity of Parliaments in governing, while fighting rear-guard actions in attempts to limit Parliament's authority. When raising money became paramount, the king was weakest and that's when Members took their advantage and expanded Parliament's role. Going from rubber-stamping requests for money to demanding, and getting, the right to audit the books was, IMO anyway, the greatest advance in Parliament's role in being a necessary part of government. And that advance occurred prior to the 1450s, so that by the time of Richard, it was recognized that, while Parliamentary participation in government wasn't always welcome by the king, it was recognized that Parliament had to be included when it came to the making and carrying out of Royal policies. Any Act of Parliament could be, and often was, repealed by a future Parliament, so any precedent established by an Act of Parliament was only good so long as it remained on the books. Judicial precedent only operated so long as the king was willing to abide by it. He had the authority to replace judges at his pleasure, and he also had the authority to call Parliament into session, with the result that judicial rulings tended on the whole to support the king and, when what the king wanted was also what that body wanted, Parliament. The fate of Edward II and Richard II showed that even a king determined to rule absolutely faced problems that required greater skills than either of those two possessed. The monarch might be considered absolute, but Heaven help him should he try and rule in that manner! To a greater or lesser extent, isn't self-interest what moves most people in positions of power? Sometimes that self-interest may be sublimated by a desire to help others but, and here's where that self-interest comes in, why is that particular person so necessary in attaining those goals? IMO, it's because it's in the self-interest of that person, if only to satisfy their egos (perhaps self-image might be better?). In regards to Edward V and his father's will, it was always a case of whether or not the Council would decide to go along with Edward IV's request, as a king couldn't, via a will anyway, require the Council to adopt any particular course. Of course, Edward IV could have gone to Parliament and had an Act passed setting out what was to happen should he die before his son reached his majority, but even then that particular Act could have been revised with the first Parliament of the new king. Presuming enough nobles/notables and Members wished to do so. Doug Who fully agrees this is an extremely complicated issue  that's what makes it so interesting! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I think you have vastly over-estimated Magna Carta. Yes, Parliaments were a useful tool when it came to raising taxation so that the unpopularity didn't fall on the monarch alone, but they were toothless, that is until that famous moment when the Speaker had 'neither eyes to see etc' for Charles I. For a start members weren't elected, they were chosen. In fact it wasn't until the various Reform Acts of the nineteenth century that we got rid of Members representing places that didn't exist! And some kings. Edward included, ruled without Parliament for years. If you didn't like what Parliament said you got rid of it fast. Because there was no written Constitution, the Law consisted of acts of parliament, judicial precedent and custom. The trouble was that acts of parliament were an expression of the monarch's wish and the judges who interpreted precedent and custom were the monarch's judges. So it was de facto an absolute monarchy, albeit cloaked in the myth of Magna Carta. What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough evidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, when the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties. And all this of course is why 'new' nation states such as the US were at pains firstly to write things down and secondly to ensure that no one person would ever be in charge of everything. In other words the 'Mother of all Parliaments' was a pretty imperfect one at this stage. H (sorry to have been so long as well; it's a complex subject)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-12 15:23:24
Doug Stamate
Marie, First off, thank you for a very interesting and illuminating post! I did want to emphasize something you wrote, however. You wrote: This practical point, of enhancing long-term stability for the benefit of rulers as well as ruled, is why all the beneficiaries of all the depositions of the period 1399-1485 were keen to disguise the extent to which their ascent to the throne was the result of their superior power, and to observe the legal niceties with as much care as they could. and I want to say that's the major point I was trying to get across. An undisputed succession, even if not via direct succession, would, or so it seems to me, be acceptable to all but the most die-hard supporters of whomever was passed over simply because a peaceful succession was always preferable to one preceded by violence, no matter how localized the violence might be. Any legal gloss that could be applied would, I would think, greatly help in maintaining the peace of the kingdom and would be welcome by all, even those not directly involved governing. I found what happened with regards to Duke Humphrey, and later in the 1450s, very interesting as it fills in the background as to why the Woodvilles were so intent in quickly having young Edward crowned. Thank you again for a very interesting post  there's quite a bit I'm going to have to look into because of it! Doug Who has moved Annette Carson's book up to first place on his list of required purchases/reading... Marie wrote:

Hi Hilary,

In response to your post to Doug, I don't think you're really in disagreement with each other, just looking at the facts from different angles. Yes, ultimately it was about who wielded the power - isn't it always, though, in any system? Observing constitutions, written or otherwise, is about a collective agreement that, although in the short term it is an unwanted brake on a leader's power, in the long run it helps avoid revolution and so keeps leaders safer in their beds. The fact that judges are appointees is a problem that has never been adequately resolved anywhere, not even under the American constitution. As soon as you have a leader unwilling to observe the conventions or the higher ideals of the constitution you have the possibility of abuse.

Obviously this was more the case with the 15thC political set-up than it is in modern democracies, but monarchs were foolish if they tried to ride roughshod over parliament, whose coop eration they needed for the granting of much-needed taxation - I think Doug is right on that one. Parliament wasn't quite as tame as has sometimes been made out - this is why kings who were experiencing dissent often tried to rule without parliament for as long as they could, and also why you see kings assenting to so many Bills initiated by the Commons that they probably weren't enthusiastic about. There are a couple of protectionist Acts passed by Richard's parliament, for instance, which appear to be the brainchildren of the London merchant community and about which Richard was probably unenthusiastic (he managed to get one of them revoked later, with the agreement of that same merchant community, because it was having unforeseen negative consequences), but these were people whom he could not afford to annoy.

Generally, we don't know what went on in Parliament, or how bolshy the members could be, but in the case of the first session of the 14 85 parliament we have a journal kept by two MPs which shows that Henry faced a lot of opposition and disgruntlement in the Commons. Similarly, the Law Book entry on the issue of repealing TR shows that there was serious argument about that in the Lords. One thing we know from the Colchester journal is that Henry announced to parliament that he was abolishing the Court of Requests (something Richard had been working hard on formalising, and which Henry probably felt the same way about as Trump felt about Obamacare); the shock and disapproval of the MPs is evident in the journal, and we can assume there must have been very serious opposition to this proposal because the Court of Requests was not abolished, and in fact the formalisation process begun by Richard continued under the Tudors.

Election of MPs was far, far from perfect in the 15thC; it is certainly true that lords such as Rivers went about looking for constituencies in which to stick their own candidates; and some parliaments, like that of 1459, were&n bsp;deliberately rigged from the centre, but it did not yet suffer all the abuses of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. There were not yet the plethora of rotten boroughs, which were the result of demographic changes over the centuries since the constituencies had been set up.

This practical point, of enhancing long-term stability for the benefit of rulers as well as ruled, is why all the beneficiaries of all the depositions of the period 1399-1485 were keen to disguise the extent to which their ascent to the throne was the result of their superior power, and to observe the legal niceties with as much care as they could.

Hilary wrote:

"What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough e vidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, wh en the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties."

Marie:

I'm afraid this is not what I was saying, and it was not the legal position. After the death of Henry V Parliament debated the terms of his will (specifically the codicils) regarding the government of England and France during the minority of his baby son. Henry had wanted Gloucester to have the tutela of the young king(wardship during his minority of him and his estate, meaning the country in this case - his actual ing was left to others) and to have specific charge of the defence of England; Bedford was to run France.

But parliament - albeit probably led by the caretaker council - objected to the tutela bit as it came from Roman law (and therefore did not fit with the unwritten English constitution), and wanted Gloucester to have only the defence of the realm, and that only until the King had been crowned. In order to make this happen, the parliament of 1422 ruled that a king had no right to confer the governance or rule of the land on anyone 'lenger than he lyved'. It was parliament who came up with the title of 'Protector' to encompass the powers for the defence of the realm that they wanted Gloucester to be confined to, and parliament who ruled that this must end after the king had been crowned.

This is all extremely well set out in Annette Carson's booklet on the offices of Protector and Constable.

So the wishes of the King died with him, legally, even if there was a will. Duke Humphrey was forced by Parliament to resign as Protector after little Henry's coronation on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to have someone running his affairs like that. This is why the Woodvilles were so keen to get Edward V crowned quickly, as they wer e relying on this precedent to end any idea Richard m ight have had of being appointed Protector. As the twelve-year-old Edward V stated in his letter to King's Lynn (written for him, perhaps?), he planned to rule in his own right from the outset since God had chosen to make him king, and was thus planning to go straight to London to be crowned. The invalidity of the will of a dead monarch with regard to the running of the country, and the short duration of a 1420s-style protectorate are reasons why traditionalist historians are not overly impressed with Richard's claim to run the country as Protector.

But I would say that another, later, precedent has been overlooked by historians, as it was overlooked by the Woodvilles in 1483, i.e. the precedent of the 1450s whereby parliament recognised the need for a Protector when a crowned king was incapable of running the country in person. Things had moved on.

So Richard did not exercise the office of Protector, or call himself that, until the caretaker Counci l had recognised him as such, which happened about 8-10 May if I recall. They were also agreed that he should continue to exercise the office after the coronation, until Edward V had reached an age of discretion. All this needed to be ratified by parliament, and it is clear from the speech Russell wrote in preparation for the parliament to be held immediately after Edward V's coronation that getting agreement for this was to be its main purpose.

Marie


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

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-12 15:47:05
Hilary Jones
Before I respond can I ask one little question which we perhaps should have clarified. By Parliament are you talking about the Commons and the Lords or both. Because there is quite a difference? I was talking about the Commons. H
On Sunday, 11 August 2019, 17:34:25 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I'm not sure about that toothless charge. As a separate part of government, acting on its' own, perhaps yes. However, beginning with the Parliaments of Edward I, there are too many instances where Parliaments, certainly under the leadership of some noble or group of nobles, were able to rein in or even overturn various royal policies to say Parliament didn't have powers of its' own that any sensible monarch would take into consideration. It does appear to me, so there's that against it, that during this period in time, Parliament was definitely a junior partner, but one that could cause an awful lot of trouble. I quite agree that Parliaments were often (usually?) managed; at the same time, however, once called into session, the Members had a disturbing habit, disturbing for monarchs anyway, of making up their own minds, regardless of whether they were appointed knights or elected burgesses. The kings probably blamed the latter, but there are still enough instances of even the knights of the shires siding against the king so that's it's fairly safe to say they weren't just yes-men. Again, caveats need to applied, and usually the king could count on the support of those knights. Sort of an unofficial King's Party? There's certainly no argument that Edward did rule without Parliament whenever he could, but there's also the fact that, especially when money matters arose, even he realized the necessity of a Parliament. To that extent, the 100 Years' War was a serendipitous occurrence when it came to the growth of Parliament. Edward needed money for the wars, to get that money he had to raise taxes and, to raise those taxes, he had to call Parliaments, whether he wanted to or not. What kings did, or so it seems to me, was accept the necessity of Parliaments in governing, while fighting rear-guard actions in attempts to limit Parliament's authority. When raising money became paramount, the king was weakest and that's when Members took their advantage and expanded Parliament's role. Going from rubber-stamping requests for money to demanding, and getting, the right to audit the books was, IMO anyway, the greatest advance in Parliament's role in being a necessary part of government. And that advance occurred prior to the 1450s, so that by the time of Richard, it was recognized that, while Parliamentary participation in government wasn't always welcome by the king, it was recognized that Parliament had to be included when it came to the making and carrying out of Royal policies. Any Act of Parliament could be, and often was, repealed by a future Parliament, so any precedent established by an Act of Parliament was only good so long as it remained on the books. Judicial precedent only operated so long as the king was willing to abide by it. He had the authority to replace judges at his pleasure, and he also had the authority to call Parliament into session, with the result that judicial rulings tended on the whole to support the king and, when what the king wanted was also what that body wanted, Parliament. The fate of Edward II and Richard II showed that even a king determined to rule absolutely faced problems that required greater skills than either of those two possessed. The monarch might be considered absolute, but Heaven help him should he try and rule in that manner! To a greater or lesser extent, isn't self-interest what moves most people in positions of power? Sometimes that self-interest may be sublimated by a desire to help others but, and here's where that self-interest comes in, why is that particular person so necessary in attaining those goals? IMO, it's because it's in the self-interest of that person, if only to satisfy their egos (perhaps self-image might be better?). In regards to Edward V and his father's will, it was always a case of whether or not the Council would decide to go along with Edward IV's request, as a king couldn't, via a will anyway, require the Council to adopt any particular course. Of course, Edward IV could have gone to Parliament and had an Act passed setting out what was to happen should he die before his son reached his majority, but even then that particular Act could have been revised with the first Parliament of the new king. Presuming enough nobles/notables and Members wished to do so. Doug Who fully agrees this is an extremely complicated issue  that's what makes it so interesting! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I think you have vastly over-estimated Magna Carta. Yes, Parliaments were a useful tool when it came to raising taxation so that the unpopularity didn't fall on the monarch alone, but they were toothless, that is until that famous moment when the Speaker had 'neither eyes to see etc' for Charles I. For a start members weren't elected, they were chosen. In fact it wasn't until the various Reform Acts of the nineteenth century that we got rid of Members representing places that didn't exist! And some kings. Edward included, ruled without Parliament for years. If you didn't like what Parliament said you got rid of it fast. Because there was no written Constitution, the Law consisted of acts of parliament, judicial precedent and custom. The trouble was that acts of parliament were an expression of the monarch's wish and the judges who interpreted precedent and custom were the monarch's judges. So it was de facto an absolute monarchy, albeit cloaked in the myth of Magna Carta. What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough evidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, when the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties. And all this of course is why 'new' nation states such as the US were at pains firstly to write things down and secondly to ensure that no one person would ever be in charge of everything. In other words the 'Mother of all Parliaments' was a pretty imperfect one at this stage. H (sorry to have been so long as well; it's a complex subject)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-12 17:20:13
mariewalsh2003

Hilary asked Doug:

Before I respond can I ask one little question which we perhaps should have clarified. By Parliament are you talking about the Commons and the Lords or both. Because there is quite a difference? I was talking about the Commons.


Marie:

Last intervention before I disappear again. The Commons had power because they could, and did, refuse to vote taxes if the King tried to ride roughshod over them. Doug is absolutely right about the effect of the cripplingly expensive 100 Years War, and the period of constant rebellion that followed it, on the power of the Commons.


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-13 10:25:52
Hilary Jones
Absolutely, the power of the Commons was to approve or reject. It had no legislative power because it didn't provide the 'government'. And if it rejected too much then it had to take a long break
This started about the succession. Where I am with that is that the king, as an absolute monarch, had the power to determine whether to maintain the status quo or to change it. Where the heir was of age that worked, it was virtually seamless. Where the heir was a minor it spelled trouble.
The trouble is regencies/Protectorates don't suit an absolute monarchy because they are in essence government by committee. This is because the Protector doesn't have the power of the monarch and is always looking over his shoulder. Even modern day democratic governments need a primus inter pares to hire and fire, make spot decisions etc. And of course the same thing happened when Henry VI became seriously impaired. Had he had a grown heir then they could have waded in and taken over, just like Henry Prince of Wales did for Henry IV. So one could actually see ROY's point of view that the country needed a strong hand, albeit perhaps temporarily. If you look at the minorities of Richard II, Henry VI and Edward VI they have the same symptoms of the jousting for power of 'committee' members. It is essentially doomed - and it blights the rest of the reign.

The only examples I can think of are where the de facto Protector is so respected, or feared, that they go unchallenged. I'm thinking of William Marshal and in France, Mazarin. And that is probably because neither could have any claim to the throne themselves.
BTW I asked about the Commons/Lords thing because Magna Carta is really about the relationship between the King and his Lords Temporal. The old Norman interdependent relationship between the king and his barons had broken down. The bit about representation was to ensure that he couldn't get too big for his boots again.
I think as you said earlier Marie we are really in agreement but saying it different ways..H
On Monday, 12 August 2019, 17:20:37 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary asked Doug:

Before I respond can I ask one little question which we perhaps should have clarified. By Parliament are you talking about the Commons and the Lords or both. Because there is quite a difference? I was talking about the Commons.


Marie:

Last intervention before I disappear again. The Commons had power because they could, and did, refuse to vote taxes if the King tried to ride roughshod over them. Doug is absolutely right about the effect of the cripplingly expensive 100 Years War, and the period of constant rebellion that followed it, on the power of the Commons.


Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-13 10:47:22
Hilary Jones
I wanted to pick up on this again because, despite my confusion between Thomas and Robert I would still put money on our Thomas coming from the family of Sir Roger Vaughan's (1471) wife, Denise
I'll quickly summarise why:
1. They originated from Wernddu in Monmouthshire2. They used the surname Vaughan, alternating with Fychan from the mid fourteenth century3. We have the IPMs of her father and brother. Land was primarily owned in England - Herefordshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. By 1437 the son had changed his surname to Thomas.4. They also were related to the Herberts through a common grandmother, Maud Barry5. They had an equally illustrious pedigree as the Vaughans of Tretower6. Finally, Margaret Herle had a co-heiress sister Maud who married into the Mortimer (of Chirk) family. She was the grandmother of Hugh Mortimer who died at Wakefield who was married to one Eleanor Cornewall. Eleanor remarried to Richard Crofts and became - presumed Governess to Edward Prince of Wales.
Now proving this is a whole different thing because of the difficulties of Welsh genealogy. Is it possible that the Monmouth Priory document could be a copy and that the name Robert should be Thomas? H
(Ps Mary do you know if the surname Barri is interchangeable with Barre?)
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 17:04:08 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online


So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?


Mary

Re: Ralph Shaa CECILY & BASTARDY CLAIM

2019-08-13 13:26:55
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Thanks Marie for the references. By the way, what does LMA stand for? London merchant records may be helpful in giving more information on the Bonauntres or Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords. J-AH did have a section on Ralph Wilford, but wasn't able to find out exactly who he was. I would love to find something to supp