Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-02 12:38:55
hjnatdat

I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.

So the individuals are:

John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)

Oliver King

Thomas Rotherham

John Morton

(I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support).

So:

John Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.

Thomas Rotheram Chancellor, Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.

Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.

John Morton I think we all know him!

Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.

In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns.

Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?

So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.

Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton?

Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what?

It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.


Any ideas? H



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-02 13:08:29
Hilary Jones
Sorry John Sherwood (Bishop Of Durham) H
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 12:42:11 BST, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.

So the individuals are:

John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)

Oliver King

Thomas Rotherham

John Morton

(I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support).

So:

John Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.

Thomas Rotheram Chancellor, Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.

Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.

John Morton I think we all know him!

Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.

In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns.

Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?

So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.

Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton?

Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what?

It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.


Any ideas? H



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-02 18:50:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Just a couple of questions and thoughts. First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? T he continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow. So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king. And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council. What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together? Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea. Doug Hilary wrote: I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post. So the individuals are: John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver King Thomas Rotherham John Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So: J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville. Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man. Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death. John Morton I think we all know him! Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes. In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward? So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison. Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'. Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-03 10:59:12
Hilary Jones
Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just a couple of questions and thoughts. First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? T he continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow. So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king. And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council. What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together? Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea. Doug Hilary wrote: I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post. So the individuals are: John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver King Thomas Rotherham John Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So: J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville. Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man. Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death. John Morton I think we all know him! Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes. In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward? So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison. Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'. Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-04 13:26:14
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Hilary, great to return to a fascinating post with so much food for thought!

My instinct is that Forster, King, Rotherham and Morton all saw better opportunities under Edward V. Under a boy King, it was more likely that appointments would maintain a status quo from his father's reign. Richard had his own established loyalties in the North and some reshuffling would be inevitable.

Rotherham's loyalties were clear when he gave EW the great seal. Until now, I hadn't been aware of the significance Luton Guild, but it covers an area that is very close to Grafton, Stony Stratford and Woodville territory. If the members are local gentry and merchants, many would have Woodville links. Berkhampstead Castle is in the general area, and many of Cecily's servants would have been drawn from that group, as were the Barley family (associated by marriage with Sir Robert Clifford) and others later caught up in the Warbeck rebellion. Are there any online records for the Guild? I can only find references to the artwork and a book with records from 1526? As far as Rotherham was concerned, given his connection to Luton, he would not just have been familiar with EW and the Woodvilles, but was also in a position to draw support from families in the Guild with Woodville leanings.
Forster's motivation was likely similar to Rotherham. He needed to keep his position, and as EW's treasurer his loyalty would without doubt be to her.
Oliver King is less obvious, but he having been EIV's French secretary, he had every reason to prefer the status quo and it was reasonably foreseeable that Richard might replace him. The interests of the London merchants may have been particularly relevant to him and Forster.

Morton is the most complex and it follows that he could have seen limitless opportunities in Edward V's minority, but I he also comes across as a sociopath (the high functioning, non criminal variety) - someone who isn't just ambitious, but enjoys shaking things up and manipulating other people to achieve his own ends. Hastings link to the group isn't obvious, but if anyone could manoeuvre Hastings into a plot that would benefit an old enemy, it was probably Morton - not just exploiting Hasting's fear of loss of position, but also suggesting that there was a plot against him from someone such as Buckingham.
The reference to the seance is very interesting. Some things in it were very off in that account, but others like Richard's injuries were uncanny. When I read the book years ago, I wasn't so convinced of a corrupt church being at the centre of of the mystery of the fate of the Princes, but looking at King's and Morton's progress under Henry VII, I can see where the idea fits. They certainly found a vehicle for their ambitions with him. Also, the medium said that a woman was involved. The only woman I can think of was MB. Is their anyway she fits in with these four? She had lands in Bedfordshire; did she have links to the Luton Guild? Could it have been a situation where initially the conspiracy was in favour of EV, but after the Tower plot failed, Morton turned his attentions to MB, Buckingham and eventually HT. If so, I wonder at which point they switched their loyalty and for what reason. If EV was killed in the Tower raid or died around the time J-AH suggested, they may have needed another direction. One thing that didn't fit was the inaccurate physical description of Morton, but does anyone know what King looked like?

I'm still looking at the Beaumonts/Spaynes etc

Nico






On Tuesday, 3 September 2019, 10:59:15 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants.. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just a couple of questions and thoughts. First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? T he continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow. So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king. And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council. What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together? Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea. Doug Hilary wrote: I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post. So the individuals are: John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver King Thomas Rotherham John Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So: J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville. Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man. Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death. John Morton I think we all know him! Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes. In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward? So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison. Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'. Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-04 13:39:47
mariewalsh2003

Hi,


Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?


First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.


Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.


Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.


Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------



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

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-04 15:13:55
Hilary Jones
Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point.
Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,


Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?


First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.


Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.


Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.


Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------



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

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-04 17:59:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Could the Guild have been established because of Cecily's status as the intended wife of James of Scotland? I don't know if he was, but might another possibility for Cecily being singled out have been due to Rotherham being, say, her god-parent? If either of these possibilities don't pan out, then I'm stuck as well for a reason. why. I wasn't trying to tie everyone together only by those old school ties and Im sorry if I misled you! IMO, while those ties may have been the origins of Rotherham's association with the King's, they were later strengthened by professional ties, both the Church and service to the royal family. Here I think it best to state what I mean by royal family and what I think it may have meant to Rotherham and members of the King family. Going by their actions, it looks to me as if the definition of royal family as applied by Rotherham & Co. was: Edward IV, Edward's wife and their children. As for what it was that brought all these different people together, I really think it was Power, the gaining and maintaining of. Lacking a majority on the Council, steps needed to be taken that would go around the Council; steps such as giving the Queen the Great Seal and, um, removing the proposed Protector. I agree that continuity was Richard's aim, both as Protector and later as King. But, or so I think, it was also the aim of the Council immediately after Edward IV died. As best I can tell, until the failure of the Woodville coup, all those who held posts under Edward IV retained them. Had Rotherham not given the Great Seal to EW, he'd likely also have retained his position as Lord Chancellor under the Protectorate; however, his giving the Great Seal to EW allied him with the Wodvilles and their downfall was his. When it comes to Hastings' involvement with the Woodvilles, I can only repeat that I think it was solely due to the prospect of young Edward being replaced by Richard with Hastings' loss of his remaining positions being almost guaranteed in the latter case. When it comes to the London merchants, the Yorkists seem to have recognized how important they could be. Didn't Buckingham also give a speech before the Mayor and Aldermen? As for how involved the French were in all this, I can't say. I have no doubt Louis was spending money gathering information, but what he then did with any information received, I don't know. Much would depend, of course, on just what that information was. Spreading rumors would also be a possible action taken by the French, but trying to track down sources of rumors after all these years... Doug Hilary wrote: Doug wrote: 'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew. I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-04 19:42:36
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
Marie:I thought you were probably thinking along those lines, but I'm afraid I have to say that, IMCO, the Old Boys' Network would be an anachronism in the context of the Eton of the 1440s. Eton was founded more than anything to provide a top-class education to bright boys from families who did not have the means to pay for it ("poor boys"), and at a time when boys typically went up to university in their mid rather than late teens. It took a considerable time (and, I imagine, monetary inflation eating away at the value of the scholarship) for Eton to become the bastion of upper-class privilege that it is today, more concerned with imparting group identity and a polish of a recognisable type than encouraging a really deep love of learning, and it is that privilege and group identity that the Old Boys' network is basically there to perpetuate. If you look at the Eton boys of the 1400s, they came from middle class, in many cases completely obscure, families, and were only there for three years or so before going on to King's College, Cambridge. Those who had really been in the same class as each other might have formed lifelong friendships in those brief years, or they might not; but Thomas Rotherham and Oliver King didn't even attend during the same years, so without that established Old Boys' network the possibility of tying them together via Eton falls apart.What I would concede is that a lasting affection for, and identification with, King's College, which both Rotherham and King attended for a considerable number of years, is very likely to have given Rotherham and King that fellow feeling, though again the Old Boys' network per se seems to me to be a bit of an anachronism. No, Morton doesn't fit with that, but he was working in the same circles as Rotherham and King, and he did have a link with the Forsters through the marriage of his cousin (?) Robert Morton of London to John Forster's sister Agnes. It is clear from Robert Morton's will that he and John Forster were good friends. And Forster links both to Hastings and the Queen, I believe off the top of my head. It doesn't have- or even want - to be a single family affair, which is part of the point I was trying to make. It is about bringing people together who all wanted the same thing and could reinforce each other's desires.

Hilary said:
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings.

Marie answers:They may have been doing so, but I don't see the value to this particular crowd of doing that. Catesby profited from Hastings' downfall, yes, but this lot had nothing to gain from it - Buckingham had become the real power behind the protectorate and would surely have been a preferential target. And of course Hastings' downfall brought down Morton, Forster, King and Rotherham in its wake so if that's what they were up to they didn't think it through. Don't forget the Queen's apparent involvement. Hastings was losing out through Buckingham's rise and Richard's apparent tendency to listen to Buckingham, and perhaps Cardinal Bourchier and John Russell, rather than him, after all that he had risked. Hastings could well have been very resentful. If the inducements were large enough, he might have succumbed and 'crossed the floor' - his stepdaughter was Dorset's wife, after all. Or he might, as has been suggested, have come to fear that Richard might depose the young king. Or he might simply have disapproved of Richard's bid to extend the protectorship until Edward was old enough to rule for himself, thus perpetuating Buckingham's influence. We don't have the inside info on these people's lives and feelings so we don't really know.

Hilary:Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top.
Marie:Well, I also have on my computer literally hundreds of transcripts of wills that I've personally made; I'm not saying that in order to boast - it just happens to be the case. The wills project I'm currently engaged in will be the third edition of published 15th-century wills that I've worked on. You maybe haven't seen this sort of address much in wills because you haven't seen many Chancellors petitioned by testators. If you look at Chancery petitions, or any petition from people of lower rank to those of higher, this is exactly the sort of form of address you will see. Anyhow, it isn't a eulogy - these are only forms of address (i.e. "the full reverent father in God my singular good lord John Bishop of Ely" and "my singular good master Master Robert Morton Master of the Rolls"). The only reason I'm really bothered is that overstating evidence can lead astray


Hilary wrote:That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven.
Marie:Surely that is exactly what he thought? If RM was so keen to get their prayers it could only have been that he believed they would be more efficacious in getting him through Purgatory than those of ordinary mortals. After all, Bishop John had even been in Rome and knew the Pope!

Hilary wrote:He could have been their nephew - son of brother William.
Marie replies:Well yes, although he seems to have been rather old to have been a nephew of the Cardinal. I agree the whole Morton tree is complicated and could use some more forensic research. But Bishop Robert is generally said to have been the Cardinal's nephew, so there is also a bit of competition going on there as either could have been William''s son Robert. As far as I've been able to work out, the Cardinal had three brothers: Richard, who inherited the family lands in Dorset, William and Thomas, who was a priest at Ely. What I can say is that Bishop Robert, in his will:-1) left a bequest to Robert, son of his late kinsman or cousin (consanguineous) Robert Morton of London2) named his brother Thomas as his heir, and named Thomas's sons as Robert, John and John. According to the earliest family trees (which are unfortunately not quite early enough to be wholly reliable),Thomas and Bishop Robert were the sons of the Cardinal's brother William. And Cardinal Morton named in his will:1) His brother Richard's sons John and William2) As residual legatee of his lands in the Home Counties only (and I stress only those lands), if brother Richard's line should fail, he named Robert son of Robert Morton. I've always found this a little puzzling, but I now think this is Robert Jr. of London again. So I don't think that Robert of London was a nephew, but I do think he could have been a first cousin. The Cardinal and his siblings are said to have been sons of a Richard Morton, and it seems quite possible that this Richard had had a brother. But it needs more investigation.
Now really must draw a line and go awayMarie
------------------

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

Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point.
Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,


Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?


First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.


Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.


Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.


Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------



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

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 12:01:31
Karen O
In Collins book 'Richard' fingers the Church for it all all the way through he repeats it. Notice the Pope supports Tudor and didn't he declare him the rightful king?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 12:46:38
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, here's on online list of Eton entrants:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101068146529&view=2up&seq=120

And you can get the Registrum Regale - a list of the Provosts of Eton online as a free EBook. Both are of course from a later century.
The latter certainly has some inaccuracies - the annotation of Oliver is wrong. Both have Alexander King and John Rotherham in the same year, with Oliver joining a year later in 1449 and Thomas preceding them. As you say he would have been older - we have his date of birth and he was born in 1423. Now we know that Oliver, Alexander and John King were still under age in April 1451, when Nedeham was given their guardianship so I'd put their dates of birth in the mid 1430s. Looking at the names I wouldn't call them obscure as such; they were of what I'd call the High Sheriff/gentry class - quite a few from the North West and the Midlands - the Greswolds, the Gresleys - Stanley territory.
Which brings me to another point. I do think we need to know more about St Albans Abbey - I bet JAH would have been good on this. You see, not only is there the William of Wallingford double distribution of the Forster/Hastings post, which Berkshire historians attribute to his absentmindedness, call it what you will, but there are a number of land transactions involving the Staffordshire gentry. Looking at their wills they make particular reference to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield and indeed the Gresleys. Now at the time of their wills, some slightly later than Rotherham, the Bishop was Geoffrey Blythe, Rotherham's half-nephew. Quite a lot of trails before and after 1485 lead back to that part of the world. It needs a lot more work.
Finally a thought. We know that Richard must have been investigating Forster - he says he was arrested by Richard's servants. How if, during these and other investigations (i.e. spying) Richard's servants stumbled on this other plan of the clerics to say collude with King Louis or encourage scurrilous rumours or just try to get the Council not to accept Richard?. You see the thing that also puzzles me is that, although two of them were dismissed from Office and imprisoned for a short time the punishment is very lenient if they had been found to be plotting to kill Richard, which, like you, I don't think they were. Rotherham had already shot himself in the foot so he had nothing to gain under Richard. But I don't think King would have lost his job. He perhaps had another financial incentive.
Morton's motivation at this point still puzzles me. As I said to Doug, with Rotherham's bad move there was likely to be a vacancy. Why didn't he hang on for it? Oh and do we know what Dorset was doing whilst all this was going on? I recall he had a pad at Henley on Thames? H


On Wednesday, 4 September 2019, 20:04:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
Marie:I thought you were probably thinking along those lines, but I'm afraid I have to say that, IMCO, the Old Boys' Network would be an anachronism in the context of the Eton of the 1440s. Eton was founded more than anything to provide a top-class education to bright boys from families who did not have the means to pay for it ("poor boys"), and at a time when boys typically went up to university in their mid rather than late teens. It took a considerable time (and, I imagine, monetary inflation eating away at the value of the scholarship) for Eton to become the bastion of upper-class privilege that it is today, more concerned with imparting group identity and a polish of a recognisable type than encouraging a really deep love of learning, and it is that privilege and group identity that the Old Boys' network is basically there to perpetuate. If you look at the Eton boys of the 1400s, they came from middle class, in many cases completely obscure, families, and were only there for three years or so before going on to King's College, Cambridge. Those who had really been in the same class as each other might have formed lifelong friendships in those brief years, or they might not; but Thomas Rotherham and Oliver King didn't even attend during the same years, so without that established Old Boys' network the possibility of tying them together via Eton falls apart.What I would concede is that a lasting affection for, and identification with, King's College, which both Rotherham and King attended for a considerable number of years, is very likely to have given Rotherham and King that fellow feeling, though again the Old Boys' network per se seems to me to be a bit of an anachronism. No, Morton doesn't fit with that, but he was working in the same circles as Rotherham and King, and he did have a link with the Forsters through the marriage of his cousin (?) Robert Morton of London to John Forster's sister Agnes. It is clear from Robert Morton's will that he and John Forster were good friends. And Forster links both to Hastings and the Queen, I believe off the top of my head. It doesn't have- or even want - to be a single family affair, which is part of the point I was trying to make. It is about bringing people together who all wanted the same thing and could reinforce each other's desires.

Hilary said:
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings.

Marie answers:They may have been doing so, but I don't see the value to this particular crowd of doing that. Catesby profited from Hastings' downfall, yes, but this lot had nothing to gain from it - Buckingham had become the real power behind the protectorate and would surely have been a preferential target. And of course Hastings' downfall brought down Morton, Forster, King and Rotherham in its wake so if that's what they were up to they didn't think it through. Don't forget the Queen's apparent involvement. Hastings was losing out through Buckingham's rise and Richard's apparent tendency to listen to Buckingham, and perhaps Cardinal Bourchier and John Russell, rather than him, after all that he had risked. Hastings could well have been very resentful. If the inducements were large enough, he might have succumbed and 'crossed the floor' - his stepdaughter was Dorset's wife, after all. Or he might, as has been suggested, have come to fear that Richard might depose the young king. Or he might simply have disapproved of Richard's bid to extend the protectorship until Edward was old enough to rule for himself, thus perpetuating Buckingham's influence. We don't have the inside info on these people's lives and feelings so we don't really know.

Hilary:Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top.
Marie:Well, I also have on my computer literally hundreds of transcripts of wills that I've personally made; I'm not saying that in order to boast - it just happens to be the case. The wills project I'm currently engaged in will be the third edition of published 15th-century wills that I've worked on. You maybe haven't seen this sort of address much in wills because you haven't seen many Chancellors petitioned by testators. If you look at Chancery petitions, or any petition from people of lower rank to those of higher, this is exactly the sort of form of address you will see. Anyhow, it isn't a eulogy - these are only forms of address (i.e. "the full reverent father in God my singular good lord John Bishop of Ely" and "my singular good master Master Robert Morton Master of the Rolls"). The only reason I'm really bothered is that overstating evidence can lead astray


Hilary wrote:That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven.
Marie:Surely that is exactly what he thought? If RM was so keen to get their prayers it could only have been that he believed they would be more efficacious in getting him through Purgatory than those of ordinary mortals. After all, Bishop John had even been in Rome and knew the Pope!

Hilary wrote:He could have been their nephew - son of brother William.
Marie replies:Well yes, although he seems to have been rather old to have been a nephew of the Cardinal. I agree the whole Morton tree is complicated and could use some more forensic research. But Bishop Robert is generally said to have been the Cardinal's nephew, so there is also a bit of competition going on there as either could have been William''s son Robert. As far as I've been able to work out, the Cardinal had three brothers: Richard, who inherited the family lands in Dorset, William and Thomas, who was a priest at Ely. What I can say is that Bishop Robert, in his will:-1) left a bequest to Robert, son of his late kinsman or cousin (consanguineous) Robert Morton of London2) named his brother Thomas as his heir, and named Thomas's sons as Robert, John and John. According to the earliest family trees (which are unfortunately not quite early enough to be wholly reliable),Thomas and Bishop Robert were the sons of the Cardinal's brother William. And Cardinal Morton named in his will:1) His brother Richard's sons John and William2) As residual legatee of his lands in the Home Counties only (and I stress only those lands), if brother Richard's line should fail, he named Robert son of Robert Morton. I've always found this a little puzzling, but I now think this is Robert Jr. of London again. So I don't think that Robert of London was a nephew, but I do think he could have been a first cousin. The Cardinal and his siblings are said to have been sons of a Richard Morton, and it seems quite possible that this Richard had had a brother. But it needs more investigation.
Now really must draw a line and go awayMarie
------------------

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

Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point.
Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that
As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, September 4, 2019, 1:34 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi,


Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters?


First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources.


Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.


Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.


Best to all,

Marie

-------------------------------



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

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just a couple of questions and thoughts.First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? The continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue.I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow.So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king.And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council.What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together?Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea.Doug Hilary wrote:I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post.So the individuals are:John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver KingThomas RotherhamJohn Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So:J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville.Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man.Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death.John Morton I think we all know him!Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes.In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward?So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison.Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'.Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 12:48:30
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico good to have you back.
Where I've got with the Beaumonds is this.
We now know that there were Beaumonds in Oxfordshire from before 1186 and that their principal lands were in Devon. They were the ancestors of the main Devon branch and as far as I can see unrelated to the Lords Beaumont, who came later. These Beaumonds in Oxfordshire/Bedfordshire held land from the Grelles - later Gresleys. Now they were still there in the fourteenth century because they are on the local land/tax returns.
We next have the Fine Rolls entry of 1396 referring to Thomas Beaumond of Bedfordshire and John Spaigne which I sent earlier:
https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero11greauoft/page/198

Spaigne appears in the same Rolls as 'of Bedfordshire' and 'of Hertfordshire' and seems to have been a favourite of Richard II. A John Beaumond appears in the tax rolls for Oxfordshire in the 1390s. Now we know that Salter Thomas came from Watlington - his parents were buried there and he is almost certainly related to Chandler John because they all move in the same circles - Forster, Malpas, Wyche, Cooke and Salter Thomas, like John, is very rich. I've managed to trace his kinsman Richard, almost certainly a descandent of Chandler John and he is a Pinner in London. There is a Richard senior and junior. Theres also a William Beaumond who sat on an IPM jury in London in the 1490s.
Re the Spaigne/Spaynes, I had a thought. Emme Spayne is not referred to as a widow in Thomas's will. Was there any chance her husband might have died later and left a will? There is a Richard Spayne who died in Luton in 1520 and he had a wife (unfortunately unnamed) who pre-deceased him. He was clearly connected with the Guild because his daughter married one of it's officials, William Dermer and there are several Spaynes in the Luton Guild (I had the book and didn't realise it) until it ceased in the 1540s. Unforuntately, records don't start till 1526, but there are books of transcribed Bedfordshire wills dating from 1495. One will is the will of William Bemond but it's proving hard to get as the Bedfordshire Record lot are volunteers and need things like cheques with a 6 week delay. There are payments to the Beamonds in the Guild but only a couple, which are for the 'Bemond Mummers'.
I also looked for other Spaynes in the region. One was William Spayne of Norwood London who died before 1499 and had a wife Ellizabeth from Brookmead Bedfordshire. They might have been Richard Spayne's parents. There's also a John Spayne of Buntingford Herts, probably William's brother, who died in 1465 and left a will. He had no children. The earliest Spayne I can find in Hertfordshire so far is Michael of Royston who died after 1364.
If you go back to the Richard II FR, Spayne is named with John Walden. The Waldens also came from London and Herts and are related to the Barleys. And of course the Rotherhams remained as overlords in Luton for nearly another century.
Finally, I think Thomas Beaumond's will is a bit strange - I'd be glad of Marie's opinion. You see nearly all wills of the period, and particularly those of clergymen, call for masses for dead parents and siblings. That's how we got at the parentage of Salter Thomas. Thomas's mother is of course still alive as is, presumably, sister Brampton (though he doesn't give her first name). But he doesn't ask for prayers for his father, or any other dead siblings does he? Or indeed any other relatives at all or any places that he came from, other than via his 'job'. Have I missed something? H
(Sorry this is so long - still a work in progress)

On Wednesday, 4 September 2019, 13:30:10 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary, great to return to a fascinating post with so much food for thought!

My instinct is that Forster, King, Rotherham and Morton all saw better opportunities under Edward V. Under a boy King, it was more likely that appointments would maintain a status quo from his father's reign. Richard had his own established loyalties in the North and some reshuffling would be inevitable.

Rotherham's loyalties were clear when he gave EW the great seal. Until now, I hadn't been aware of the significance Luton Guild, but it covers an area that is very close to Grafton, Stony Stratford and Woodville territory. If the members are local gentry and merchants, many would have Woodville links. Berkhampstead Castle is in the general area, and many of Cecily's servants would have been drawn from that group, as were the Barley family (associated by marriage with Sir Robert Clifford) and others later caught up in the Warbeck rebellion. Are there any online records for the Guild? I can only find references to the artwork and a book with records from 1526? As far as Rotherham was concerned, given his connection to Luton, he would not just have been familiar with EW and the Woodvilles, but was also in a position to draw support from families in the Guild with Woodville leanings.
Forster's motivation was likely similar to Rotherham. He needed to keep his position, and as EW's treasurer his loyalty would without doubt be to her.
Oliver King is less obvious, but he having been EIV's French secretary, he had every reason to prefer the status quo and it was reasonably foreseeable that Richard might replace him. The interests of the London merchants may have been particularly relevant to him and Forster.

Morton is the most complex and it follows that he could have seen limitless opportunities in Edward V's minority, but I he also comes across as a sociopath (the high functioning, non criminal variety) - someone who isn't just ambitious, but enjoys shaking things up and manipulating other people to achieve his own ends. Hastings link to the group isn't obvious, but if anyone could manoeuvre Hastings into a plot that would benefit an old enemy, it was probably Morton - not just exploiting Hasting's fear of loss of position, but also suggesting that there was a plot against him from someone such as Buckingham.
The reference to the seance is very interesting. Some things in it were very off in that account, but others like Richard's injuries were uncanny. When I read the book years ago, I wasn't so convinced of a corrupt church being at the centre of of the mystery of the fate of the Princes, but looking at King's and Morton's progress under Henry VII, I can see where the idea fits. They certainly found a vehicle for their ambitions with him. Also, the medium said that a woman was involved. The only woman I can think of was MB. Is their anyway she fits in with these four? She had lands in Bedfordshire; did she have links to the Luton Guild? Could it have been a situation where initially the conspiracy was in favour of EV, but after the Tower plot failed, Morton turned his attentions to MB, Buckingham and eventually HT. If so, I wonder at which point they switched their loyalty and for what reason. If EV was killed in the Tower raid or died around the time J-AH suggested, they may have needed another direction. One thing that didn't fit was the inaccurate physical description of Morton, but does anyone know what King looked like?

I'm still looking at the Beaumonts/Spaynes etc

Nico






On Tuesday, 3 September 2019, 10:59:15 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:
'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew.I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants.. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that. H
(Sorry this is so long - good to see you back)
On Monday, 2 September 2019, 18:50:30 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just a couple of questions and thoughts. First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? T he continued association of these three clerics with Forster could very well have been basically due to ties formed while students, couldn't it? The clerics would have their profession in common; might the inclusion of Forster simply be due to a mixture of old school ties and the trio availing themselves of his financial, um, acumen? Now the thoughts. One thing the three clerics seem to have in common is foreign affairs. Rotherham and Morton were both employed by Edward IV as ambassadors; while King served as Edward's Secretary and Speaker of the Gallic Tongue. I may be going out on a limb here, but it seems to me that all four had specific reasons that united them against Richard assuming the throne. Unless I'm mistaken, the positions held by both Rotherham and King were dependent on young Edward remaining on the throne. We know Rotherham was dismissed as Lord Chancellor on 13 May, 1483, but I can't find whether or not King also lost his position after Edward IV's death. Morton, as we also know, held no specific position at Edward's death, even though he had been employed on occasion. Forster, OTOH, was definitely tied into EW's affinity in his position as her Treasurer and Receiver General. If EW lost her position as Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, Forster would almost certainly take a severe financial blow. So, should Richard assume the throne, we're looking at an Archbishop (Rotherham) who's already been displaced as Lord Chancellor and will likely be relegated to his See; another bishop (King) who, if he hasn't already lost his job, will likely do so; another bishop (Morton) who faces the prospect of never being allowed the exercise of the talents/abilities he feels he possesses; and a financial wheeler/dealer who's likely to lose, if not everything, an awful lot of what he's garnered over the years. Rotherham and King had operated at the highest levels of Edward IV's government, while the position Forster occupied in EW's household was to that household as the position of Lord Treasurer was to England. And, I repeat, all would go if Richard replaced young Edward as king. And, really, I also believe that's what animated Hastings' involvement. He'd lost his position as Lord Chamberlain with the death of Edward IV and, or so it seems to me, only retained his positions at Calais and the Mint because the Council likely wanted to maintain a certain balance between the Woodville faction that supported young Edward taking over immediately and those supporting Richard in his position as Lord Protector. FWIW, I think that at that point in time Hastings, with his known enmity to Dorset, was likely viewed as the closest to a neutral there was on the Council. What could unite Hastings and the Woodvilles, or so it seems to me, was the possibility of losing everything if young Edward was to be replaced by Richard. I don't think I'm being cynical if I consider that to have been sufficient reason to bring them together? Although how Hastings would have held the Woodvilles to any promises they'd made, I have no idea. Doug Hilary wrote: I've spent a little time recently looking at the alleged conspirators in the Tower/Hastings plot. The results as usual raised more questions than they gave answers, but they are interesting because some of them had relationships which filter through to Brampton/Warbeck which I'll deal with in another post. So the individuals are: John Forster (arrested at Welde Hall Herts the day before)
Oliver King Thomas Rotherham John Morton (I'm ignoring Thomas Stanley as we have a letter from Richard to him thanking him for his support). So: J ohn Forster, Treasurer and Receiver General to EW. Son of Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor of London (Grocer/Stockfishmonger). Brother of Robert (Grocer) and Agnes married to Robert Morton, Barrister (of whom more later). Married to Joan Cooke, daughter of Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Cooke and granddaughter to Alderman Philip Malpas and Juliana Beaumond. Interestingly, Cooke had been arrested for treason for lending money to MOA but was saved by Justice Markham. In his career Forster acquires significant monies and lands, including Maudelyns in Herts, which Richard later gives to Brackenbury. He doesn't come across as a particularly attractive character; more an acquisitive one. He claims to HT for example that Richard unjustly imprisoned him for 1000 days, yet his business deals show otherwise. He died in 1487 and Joan Cooke married Richard Turbeville. Thomas Rotheram Chancellor,& nbsp; Archbishop of York. From Rotherham Yorkshire but, like Forster, gifted attainted lands in Maudelyns and also in Luton. Brother of John, Esquire, Sheriff of Bucks & Beds and Mercer, and of Roger, Master of King's Hall Cambridge, who died in 1477. With John, establishes a base in Luton for his family by co-founding the Guild of the Holy Trinity to pray for the souls of King Edward, EW, Cecily and most importantly, ROY 'the true and undoubted heir to the English throne'. Note no mention of young Edward. Not his only Guild there were others at Biggleswade Beds and Ashwell and Hitchin in Herts. I think the Guild is a bit of a red-herring here - its 13 first members were from those merchants, gentry and the odd lord, associated with Luton. Other members were lower gentry. Had handed the Great Seal to EW in Sanctuary.The cover of the Luton Guild Book is a great testimony to Rotherham's ego - there he is, lecturing the King, Queen and Court. So much for the supposedly humble man. Oliver King King Edward's Secretary and Speaker in the Gallic tongue. Son of a London tailor and brother to Alexander (Priest), John and Hugh and to Elizabeth married to Robert Cosyn Keeper of the Great Wardrobe to Edward and parents of William Cosyn, Thomas Beaumond's executor. Later close friend of and spy for HT and Bishop of Bath & Wells and 'tracker' of Perkin Warbeck. Mother Alice remarried to Richard Nedeham onetime servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester and reprieved at the last minute from a traitor's death. John Morton I think we all know him! Strange group aren't they; three clerics and a financial wheeler/dealer? Had they anything in common other than being round the Court? Well strangely yes. In his will of 1487 Robert Morton, husband of Agnes Forster, writes a eulogy to his kinsmen, the Bishop and Robert Master of the Rolls. Forster and Rotherham were of course 'shareholders' in Maudelyns. Alexander, Oliver and John King were at Eton in the same years as Thomas and John Rotherham - and they were very small classes. Oliver then went to King's College Cambridge, as did Thomas. Since they were all admitted to Eton between 1447 and 1449 it is of course likely that they studied together at Cambridge. In fact one wonders whether Rotherham was instrumental in introducing King to Edward? So I think we can deduce that these people knew each other not just through contact at Court?.However, a number of things puzzle me. For a start, what would attract Hastings to them - or were they conveying a message from EW securing his Offices? We know there was enmity between Forster and Hastings because the Abbot of St Albans had unwittingly or forgetfully conferred the same post of Steward of the Liberty of St Albans on first Hastings and then Forster. Katherine Hastings was still chasing this as a widow. So theirs was not a likely liaison. Furthermore, what at this stage was the motivation of Morton? Was it that the likelihood of a cardinal's hat might have been stronger under young Edward as William Sherwood was at present head of the queue because his father had been a great supporter of ROY and would therefore be recommended by Richard? HT does not seem to have been in the picture as a possible Pretender, that was to come later. And what was the relationship between EW and Morton; doesn't seem to have been close before? Had Forster drawn in Morton? Personally I find it very strange. If these were four magnates vying to maintain their positions under young Edward I could understand it but we have three clergymen here, albeit three very ambitious clergymen. I don't think it's about the honour of young Edward or the memory of his father, it has to be something else but what? It reminds me of that 'comment' of Richard in the Collins seance - 'it was the Church'. Any ideas?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 16:47:31
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 17:23:59
mariewalsh2003

Hi just a quick intervention on Emma Spayne to save you chasing false leads. Do you remember that I found she was a Londoner and a widow by looking in the Common Pleas index on the AALT website? She was suing with her son Thomas Beamond as a widow in 1500.

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 17:29:59
mariewalsh2003

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 17:36:34
Hilary Jones
Thanks! Though I went to AALT I couldn't find neither could Nico. There are a lot of Spaynes in the Luton/Herts area. I did look at every Emme/Emma in London in BHOL and National Archives. It took hours. As I said still work in progress. If you could pinpoint that reference more it might help. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:35 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi just a quick intervention on Emma Spayne to save you chasing false leads. Do you remember that I found she was a Londoner and a widow by looking in the Common Pleas index on the AALT website? She was suing with her son Thomas Beamond as a widow in 1500.

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 17:52:03
Hilary Jones
Yes he did! And according to Johnson (sorry) wantedvto spend a fortune on the place
BYW thatnks for the LMA link. I found both Dionysia and Margaret Beaumond there. And Richard. D was married to Hugh Wyche. This was no poor family. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 22:13:32
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The Beaumont/Beaumonds and Spaynes are certainly painstaking research. I found a few Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Berkshire families in the visitations and rolls, but nothing that specifically pins down exactly who Thomas and Margaret's father was, but I keep coming back to it. I think they are of the same family as the London Thomas and John. Estimating the age group of John Spayne and Thomas Beaumond in the commitment entry of 1396 they could be great or great great grandparents of Thomas and Margaret. Possibly there was intermarriage between the families of over several generations. Clearly both families had some local status.

That is an interesting observation about the lack of prayers for Thomas Beaumond's father. If Emme Spayne was described as widow in the common pleas, Mr.Beaumond must be long dead, presuming that Mr. Spayne was a subsequent husband of Emme's.As far as I know, medieval women took the name of their husbands, but was it always the case? I'm no expert on medieval wills, but from the ones I have read, prayers for deceased close relatives do appear standard in wills from that time. Even if Mr. Beaumond died when his children were young, it would still be a courtesy to ask for prayers for him. Would ignoring your parents in a will be a grave insult to them, suggesting some sort of animosity? Could the Thomas and Margaret have been illegitimate? Perhaps Emme was born a Beaumond and the children had her name then she married Mr. Spayne - just a thought. Oliver King is mentioned in the will. Could have have been his father, not just a mentor? If his was the son of a priest that may have been a reason to keep things quiet.
Nico


Hilary wrote: Hi Nico good to have you back.
Where I've got with the Beaumonds is this.We now know that there were Beaumonds in Oxfordshire from before 1186 and that their principal lands were in Devon. They were the ancestors of the main Devon branch and as far as I can see unrelated to the Lords Beaumont, who came later. These Beaumonds in Oxfordshire/Bedfordshire held land from the Grelles - later Gresleys. Now they were still there in the fourteenth century because they are on the local land/tax returns.We next have the Fine Rolls entry of 1396 referring to Thomas Beaumond of Bedfordshire and John Spaigne which I sent earlier:https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero11greauoft/page/198Spaigne appears in the same Rolls as 'of Bedfordshire' and 'of Hertfordshire' and seems to have been a favourite of Richard II. A John Beaumond appears in the tax rolls for Oxfordshire in the 1390s. Now we know that Salter Thomas came from Watlington - his parents were buried there and he is almost certainly related to Chandler John because they all move in the same circles - Forster, Malpas, Wyche, Cooke and Salter Thomas, like John, is very rich. I've managed to trace his kinsman Richard, almost certainly a descandent of Chandler John and he is a Pinner in London. There is a Richard senior and junior. Theres also a William Beaumond who sat on an IPM jury in London in the 1490s.
Re the Spaigne/Spaynes, I had a thought. Emme Spayne is not referred to as a widow in Thomas's will. Was there any chance her husband might have died later and left a will? There is a Richard Spayne who died in Luton in 1520 and he had a wife (unfortunately unnamed) who pre-deceased him. He was clearly connected with the Guild because his daughter married one of it's officials, William Dermer and there are several Spaynes in the Luton Guild (I had the book and didn't realise it) until it ceased in the 1540s. Unforuntately, records don't start till 1526, but there are books of transcribed Bedfordshire wills dating from 1495. One will is the will of William Bemond but it's proving hard to get as the Bedfordshire Record lot are volunteers and need things like cheques with a 6 week delay. There are payments to the Beamonds in the Guild but only a couple, which are for the 'Bemond Mummers'.
I also looked for other Spaynes in the region. One was William Spayne of Norwood London who died before 1499 and had a wife Ellizabeth from Brookmead Bedfordshire. They might have been Richard Spayne's parents. There's also a John Spayne of Buntingford Herts, probably William's brother, who died in 1465 and left a will. He had no children. The earliest Spayne I can find in Hertfordshire so far is Michael of Royston who died after 1364.
If you go back to the Richard II FR, Spayne is named with John Walden. The Waldens also came from London and Herts and are related to the Barleys. And of course the Rotherhams remained as overlords in Luton for nearly another century.
Finally, I think Thomas Beaumond's will is a bit strange - I'd be glad of Marie's opinion. You see nearly all wills of the period, and particularly those of clergymen, call for masses for dead parents and siblings. That's how we got at the parentage of Salter Thomas. Thomas's mother is of course still alive as is, presumably, sister Brampton (though he doesn't give her first name). But he doesn't ask for prayers for his father, or any other dead siblings does he? Or indeed any other relatives at all or any places that he came from, other than via his 'job'. Have I missed something?

On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 18:03:10 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes he did! And according to Johnson (sorry) wantedvto spend a fortune on the place


BYW thatnks for the LMA link. I found both Dionysia and Margaret Beaumond there. And Richard. D was married to Hugh Wyche. This was no poor family. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-05 22:29:52
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious with some of this, but not knowing where you got lost I thought I'd better start at the start.

The way to find the index to the Common Pleas Rolls on the AALT website is to click "Enter Site", then click on the name of the king whose reign you're interested in, in the left-hand column.

You will then get a page with columns for lots of different classes of document for different dates in the reign. Amongst these is a column headed "Common Pleas Plea Rolls", in which column all the file names start "CP 40".


To get into the modern index for the Common Pleas files, click on [Mod IDX] anywhere you see it in that column. That takes you to the contents list for the index, which has thus far been done for roughly one law term in eight.


Once into the Index list, scroll down to the year 1500, where you will find the index to CP 40/951 (which is the file for Hilary term 1500).

Now you have found your post, click on one of the "sorted by. . ." options underneath the heading (not on the heading above them - that will take you straight back to the main page). Any of the "sorted by" lists will find you Emma Spayne if you use the Find option on your toolbar.

The other way to do it is to click on "Sorted by Plaintiff" and then scroll down to S.

You will find "Spayne, Emma, widow; Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing a London brewer, with a reference of d842. That means it's on image number 842 amongst the dorses of the file in question.

But two items above that there are "Sp--- Emma, widow, Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing the same person. Clearly Emma Spayne again. That reference is f50, i.e. image no 50 amongst the fronts.

Now, to find the actual cases, you go back to the main page, scroll down to year 1500 and click on CP 40/951.

You will then be given a choice of fronts and dorses. Click on fronts, then on image 0050 and you should be on to the page in which Emma appears with her name is partly obscured.

Come out of fronts and into dorses, scroll straight down to the bottom of the page, click the forward arrow and keep going till you reach the page with image 842.


Once you've got the idea, you can have great fun searching for more references in other years, or for references to just about anybody you can think of.


Now, can I make a small charge for this - maybe the reference for Nedeham being granted custody of the King brothers?


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 09:55:19
Hilary Jones
That is a very interesting thought about Oliver King, Nico. Now William Cosyn his nephew went to Eton but our Thomas didn't as far as I can see. And Cosyn was an executor and could well be the one who had Thomas's book. As we know, it wasn't at all unusual for priests, particularly those of some standing in the church, to have children. There's a lawsuit about the daughter of John Stokesley, Bishop of London, where she is described as his kinswoman.
I do think we are onto the right Beaumonds. These in the City of London moved in exactly the same circles as Edward Brampton would have done - i.e. the rich merchants whose ties with the King were cemented with loans. And they weren't nobodies, Emme must be somewhere. I'm going to have a look at the AALT now Marie has so kindly guided us. I'll keep you posted. H
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 22:14:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136
The Beaumont/Beaumonds and Spaynes are certainly painstaking research. I found a few Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Berkshire families in the visitations and rolls, but nothing that specifically pins down exactly who Thomas and Margaret's father was, but I keep coming back to it. I think they are of the same family as the London Thomas and John. Estimating the age group of John Spayne and Thomas Beaumond in the commitment entry of 1396 they could be great or great great grandparents of Thomas and Margaret. Possibly there was intermarriage between the families of over several generations. Clearly both families had some local status.

That is an interesting observation about the lack of prayers for Thomas Beaumond's father. If Emme Spayne was described as widow in the common pleas, Mr.Beaumond must be long dead, presuming that Mr. Spayne was a subsequent husband of Emme's.As far as I know, medieval women took the name of their husbands, but was it always the case? I'm no expert on medieval wills, but from the ones I have read, prayers for deceased close relatives do appear standard in wills from that time. Even if Mr. Beaumond died when his children were young, it would still be a courtesy to ask for prayers for him. Would ignoring your parents in a will be a grave insult to them, suggesting some sort of animosity? Could the Thomas and Margaret have been illegitimate? Perhaps Emme was born a Beaumond and the children had her name then she married Mr. Spayne - just a thought. Oliver King is mentioned in the will. Could have have been his father, not just a mentor? If his was the son of a priest that may have been a reason to keep things quiet.
Nico


Hilary wrote: Hi Nico good to have you back.
Where I've got with the Beaumonds is this.We now know that there were Beaumonds in Oxfordshire from before 1186 and that their principal lands were in Devon. They were the ancestors of the main Devon branch and as far as I can see unrelated to the Lords Beaumont, who came later. These Beaumonds in Oxfordshire/Bedfordshire held land from the Grelles - later Gresleys. Now they were still there in the fourteenth century because they are on the local land/tax returns.We next have the Fine Rolls entry of 1396 referring to Thomas Beaumond of Bedfordshire and John Spaigne which I sent earlier:https://archive.org/details/calendaroffinero11greauoft/page/198Spaigne appears in the same Rolls as 'of Bedfordshire' and 'of Hertfordshire' and seems to have been a favourite of Richard II. A John Beaumond appears in the tax rolls for Oxfordshire in the 1390s. Now we know that Salter Thomas came from Watlington - his parents were buried there and he is almost certainly related to Chandler John because they all move in the same circles - Forster, Malpas, Wyche, Cooke and Salter Thomas, like John, is very rich. I've managed to trace his kinsman Richard, almost certainly a descandent of Chandler John and he is a Pinner in London. There is a Richard senior and junior. Theres also a William Beaumond who sat on an IPM jury in London in the 1490s.
Re the Spaigne/Spaynes, I had a thought. Emme Spayne is not referred to as a widow in Thomas's will. Was there any chance her husband might have died later and left a will? There is a Richard Spayne who died in Luton in 1520 and he had a wife (unfortunately unnamed) who pre-deceased him. He was clearly connected with the Guild because his daughter married one of it's officials, William Dermer and there are several Spaynes in the Luton Guild (I had the book and didn't realise it) until it ceased in the 1540s. Unforuntately, records don't start till 1526, but there are books of transcribed Bedfordshire wills dating from 1495. One will is the will of William Bemond but it's proving hard to get as the Bedfordshire Record lot are volunteers and need things like cheques with a 6 week delay. There are payments to the Beamonds in the Guild but only a couple, which are for the 'Bemond Mummers'.
I also looked for other Spaynes in the region. One was William Spayne of Norwood London who died before 1499 and had a wife Ellizabeth from Brookmead Bedfordshire. They might have been Richard Spayne's parents. There's also a John Spayne of Buntingford Herts, probably William's brother, who died in 1465 and left a will. He had no children. The earliest Spayne I can find in Hertfordshire so far is Michael of Royston who died after 1364.
If you go back to the Richard II FR, Spayne is named with John Walden. The Waldens also came from London and Herts and are related to the Barleys. And of course the Rotherhams remained as overlords in Luton for nearly another century.
Finally, I think Thomas Beaumond's will is a bit strange - I'd be glad of Marie's opinion. You see nearly all wills of the period, and particularly those of clergymen, call for masses for dead parents and siblings. That's how we got at the parentage of Salter Thomas. Thomas's mother is of course still alive as is, presumably, sister Brampton (though he doesn't give her first name). But he doesn't ask for prayers for his father, or any other dead siblings does he? Or indeed any other relatives at all or any places that he came from, other than via his 'job'. Have I missed something?

On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 18:03:10 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes he did! And according to Johnson (sorry) wantedvto spend a fortune on the place


BYW thatnks for the LMA link. I found both Dionysia and Margaret Beaumond there. And Richard. D was married to Hugh Wyche. This was no poor family. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, September 5, 2019, 4:39 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

I hope my reply to this will turn up, but anyway had forgotten to say the thing I had really come back for, i.e. that I think we've all been missing the really important thing about Eton and King's College alumni at this period (right at the start of these institutions' lives), and that is the affection in which they are likely to have held the memory of Henry VI, whose foundations had educated them so well. Didn't Henry even tend to pop over to Eton from Windsor to visit Eton and talk to the boys, or is my memory deceiving me?

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 10:24:47
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
Thank you so very, very much. I got into the kings and the actual photos but without a context list so it was like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I will of course give you the reference about Nedeham/King:

0 Nov., 23 Henry VI. [A.D. 1444], came Richard Nedham, John Sturgeon, Thomas Bernard, Thomas Batayle, "Agustine" Stratton, John Harowe, and John Chirche into the Court of the lord the King, in the Chamber of the Guildhall, before Henry Frowyk, the Mayor, and the Aldermen, and entered into bond with John Chichele, the Chamberlain, in the sum of 500 marks.

¶The same day the guardianship of Hugh, Alexander, Elianora, Oliver, and Elizabeth, children of John Kyng, late tailor, together with their patrimony, committed by Henry Frowyk, the Mayor, the Aldermen, and Chamberlain to the above Richard Nedham (who married the mother of the said orphans), on his finding the above security.


Folios 221b-230: Sept 1444 - | British History Online





Sorry I said yesterday that Oliver was not of age by 1450. In fact he was by 1451 because he and Alexander are mentioned in a deed then. I'd still put their DOBs in the 1430s though. Alexander of course became an Archdeacon. John King the younger is mentioned in some of the debt lawsuits below with Nedeham and his wife so he could have been over 21 when patronage of the others was granted to Nedeham. Alexander of course became an Archdeacon and was alive in 1486.
John King was also known as John Beket viz:
'C 4/49/5Description: John Beket as John Kyng of London, tailor, concerning certain goods of Christiane, daughter of the late John Weber of Salop: agreement made in chancery
Date of document: 16 Hen VI
Date: 1437 Sep 1 - 1438 Aug 31Held by: The National Archives, Kew'
I have done a lot of work on King and the Beaumonds and have several other references. I don't think John King was a poor tailor. Nedeham and his widow were chasing quite substantial monies owed in the courts for quite a time after his death. He could even have been tailor to the Court. His daughter did after all marry the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe.
Hope this helps. Thanks again. H


On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 22:35:50 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Forgive me if I'm stating the obvious with some of this, but not knowing where you got lost I thought I'd better start at the start.

The way to find the index to the Common Pleas Rolls on the AALT website is to click "Enter Site", then click on the name of the king whose reign you're interested in, in the left-hand column.

You will then get a page with columns for lots of different classes of document for different dates in the reign. Amongst these is a column headed "Common Pleas Plea Rolls", in which column all the file names start "CP 40".


To get into the modern index for the Common Pleas files, click on [Mod IDX] anywhere you see it in that column. That takes you to the contents list for the index, which has thus far been done for roughly one law term in eight.


Once into the Index list, scroll down to the year 1500, where you will find the index to CP 40/951 (which is the file for Hilary term 1500).

Now you have found your post, click on one of the "sorted by. . ." options underneath the heading (not on the heading above them - that will take you straight back to the main page). Any of the "sorted by" lists will find you Emma Spayne if you use the Find option on your toolbar.

The other way to do it is to click on "Sorted by Plaintiff" and then scroll down to S.

You will find "Spayne, Emma, widow; Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing a London brewer, with a reference of d842. That means it's on image number 842 amongst the dorses of the file in question.

But two items above that there are "Sp--- Emma, widow, Beamond, Thomas, clerk" suing the same person. Clearly Emma Spayne again. That reference is f50, i.e. image no 50 amongst the fronts.

Now, to find the actual cases, you go back to the main page, scroll down to year 1500 and click on CP 40/951.

You will then be given a choice of fronts and dorses. Click on fronts, then on image 0050 and you should be on to the page in which Emma appears with her name is partly obscured.

Come out of fronts and into dorses, scroll straight down to the bottom of the page, click the forward arrow and keep going till you reach the page with image 842.


Once you've got the idea, you can have great fun searching for more references in other years, or for references to just about anybody you can think of.


Now, can I make a small charge for this - maybe the reference for Nedeham being granted custody of the King brothers?


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 11:01:46
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 11:56:35
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, so sorry, we had a Yahoo crash yesterday and I had to re-write everything.
Firstly, re the Guild I think it was probably to do with enhancing the reputation of members of the Rotherham family in Luton. Thomas Rotherham had established others in the area. It was licensed on 12 May 1474 to Thomas Rotherham, John Rotherham and eleven other mainly local Luton people such as John Acworth. Barbara Tearle, who edits the Guild Book, suggests that it was both to enhance the position of John Rotherham, who was principle landowner in Luton and to consolidate Rotherham's position as Chancellor to Edward.
As for the rest, I've had a different thought on all this. The story as told and rehashed by many goes something like this:
The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?). And of course Hastings; but does he arrive at the same time as them or later wielding a sword? According to various versions there are either weapons concealed in the room (how?) or soldiers ready to pounce on Richard and Buckingham at Hastings' behest. Morton then toddles off to get strawberries - does he get back before the action (so bizarre it must be true)? At some point either Richard turns on Hastings, or Hastings bursts in. There is a scuffle. Hastings is carted off and either executed then or a week later (depending on how you interpret the different writers of Stalworth's letter) and three clerics approaching pensionable age are sent to the Tower where they get the equivalent of what would today be Community Service. And Forster gets about the same, or slightly more depending who you believe. For plotting to kill Richard? That's mad! Sir Thomas Cooke found himself facing a charge of treason 'just' for lending money to MOA!
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?
Forster, being Forster, says something like 'I don't know why you're arresting me, you should look at what Hastings is up to, he hates Buckingham and wants him and your master out of the way. And whilst you're looking, have a look at what Morton's up to with MB. EW's told me all about that'. Forster's been in Ludgate and knows how to 'bribe' captors or get a commuted sentence for information. He also knows that Richard is in a high state of alert, as is witnessed by the letter to York.
Forster's captors (Richard's servants) tell Richard what Forster has said and the meeting goes ahead. Now I also think it reasonable to believe that at this stage Richard is mentally quite fragile. He's not had proper time to mourn Edward, he's been under siege for a lot of the time since he set out from York and he's in a city where he is faced with rebuilding trust. He starts to think that Hastings had probably lured him into the Rivers trap and, as we know, you can soon start to conjecture all sorts of things - just as I'm doing here :) So it would only take Hastings to make one unwise throwaway remark in that meeting for Richard to interpret it as proof of his guilt and bingo! The clerics, on the other hand, have time to deny their guilt, though Richard no longer trusts them and does believe the bit about Morton. Too much back history around HT. And Richard of course in due time lives to regret his haste.
Was Forster correct or was it a revenge mission over St Albans and all that had happened to EW? H



On Wednesday, 4 September 2019, 18:22:35 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Could the Guild have been established because of Cecily's status as the intended wife of James of Scotland? I don't know if he was, but might another possibility for Cecily being singled out have been due to Rotherham being, say, her god-parent? If either of these possibilities don't pan out, then I'm stuck as well for a reason. why. I wasn't trying to tie everyone together only by those old school ties and Im sorry if I misled you! IMO, while those ties may have been the origins of Rotherham's association with the King's, they were later strengthened by professional ties, both the Church and service to the royal family. Here I think it best to state what I mean by royal family and what I think it may have meant to Rotherham and members of the King family. Going by their actions, it looks to me as if the definition of royal family as applied by Rotherham & Co. was: Edward IV, Edward's wife and their children. As for what it was that brought all these different people together, I really think it was Power, the gaining and maintaining of. Lacking a majority on the Council, steps needed to be taken that would go around the Council; steps such as giving the Queen the Great Seal and, um, removing the proposed Protector. I agree that continuity was Richard's aim, both as Protector and later as King. But, or so I think, it was also the aim of the Council immediately after Edward IV died. As best I can tell, until the failure of the Woodville coup, all those who held posts under Edward IV retained them. Had Rotherham not given the Great Seal to EW, he'd likely also have retained his position as Lord Chancellor under the Protectorate; however, his giving the Great Seal to EW allied him with the Wodvilles and their downfall was his. When it comes to Hastings' involvement with the Woodvilles, I can only repeat that I think it was solely due to the prospect of young Edward being replaced by Richard with Hastings' loss of his remaining positions being almost guaranteed in the latter case. When it comes to the London merchants, the Yorkists seem to have recognized how important they could be. Didn't Buckingham also give a speech before the Mayor and Aldermen? As for how involved the French were in all this, I can't say. I have no doubt Louis was spending money gathering information, but what he then did with any information received, I don't know. Much would depend, of course, on just what that information was. Spreading rumors would also be a possible action taken by the French, but trying to track down sources of rumors after all these years... Doug Hilary wrote: Doug wrote: 'First the questions. Regarding that Guild of the Holy Trinity established in Luton by Rotherham, could that reference to RoY be Edward IV's father, rather than his son? Is there a date for the Guild's establishment in Luton? '

The Luton Guild was established in 1477, after the Rotherhams had made their home there. Yes ROY is Richard Duke of York; I was pointing out there was no reference to Edward's heirs. There's also nothing which makes it specifically for EW, which is what Marie thought might have been the case. And I haven't found any record yet of her interacting with it.
Re the rest, the problem is that only Rotherham and King had the same old school ties; Morton was an Oxford man and he and Stillington had much more in common. Forster didn't have one at all, but his sister was married to Morton's nephew. I agree about the foreign affairs link, though I don't think King travelled on missions quite like the others. He is less well-documented. He was only sacked after the incident in the Tower, so there's every indication that he would have stayed on otherwise - Richard had made a point that he intended continuity. Rotherham, on the other hand, had handed over the Seal to EW in Sanctuary, an act of pure defiance, and was made to hand it back to Bourchier. So in acting against Richard, Rotherham and King made their own career choice. I doubt Rotherham would have lost the Chancellor's job either; after all he was also Archbishop of York and had been doing the job well. Forster, as you say, did have something to lose, if only influence, but he is to me someone driven by financial gain rather than power. After all he'd once been in Ludgate for debt. I still don't know what Morton had to gain; in fact if he'd kept out of it he might have slotted nicely into Rotherham's job?
As for Hastings, he and Forster were extremely hostile to one another over St Albans and the hostility continued through his widow after his death. Now if say Stanley, Howard and Suffolk had joined together to say they were threatened by Buckingham I could have seen him joining them but somehow not this strange group of clerics.
There is one other thing. When I've been researching this and the 'Beaumond' continuation one of the things you realise is the enormous power of the City of London. We talked about the powers of Parliament in limiting expenditure or taxation but the King's alternative was the bank of the London merchants. In modern terms they loaned him millions, probably billions. Brampton has been singled out as a lender but there were lots of others like Hugh Wyche who loaned hundreds of thousands Which is why they were knighted and made KBs. I think the City of London's reaction to a minority monarchy would be interesting, since, as with modern markets, it's how it affects stability. If could well be that Ralph Shaa's speech (as brother of a Mayor) was as much about financial stability as hereditary entitlement. After all, it was the City of London who effectively put an end to the Readeption by refusing to ditch the Hansa for the French.
If King were in league with Louis (and he certainly got in league with HT very quickly) then it would be in the interests of the French to make sure Richard didn't take the lead. That way there would be no chance ever that the French merchants could get a foot in. Now Rotherham is different. He was very briefly re-installed as Chancellor by HT and then dropped, never participating in government again. And Morton I think really got where he was when he 'anointed' HT as heir. I do wonder whether Stanley's reputed anger during the Tower incident was because Morton had tried to drag MB and her son into whatever the four were up to; hence Stanley being told to 'look to his wife'? So I'm still puzzled by what made Hastings ally with Forster; unless he had been made false promises so that Forster could finally get him out of the way. Or unless he'd been told that Buckingham was plotting against him and he believed it?
BTW I do think the City of London had probably a very significant part to play after Bosworth. I'll come back to you on that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 12:06:19
Nicholas Brown
Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 12:17:02
Hilary Jones
Got it Nico
http://aalt.law.uh.edu/Indices/CP40Indices/CP40no951/CP40no951Pl.htm

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null




Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 12:24:59
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

Robert Morton was Master of the Rolls, and in charge of the Domus from 9/1/1479-22/9/1483 and later from 22/8/1485-26/2/1487 with William Eliot. Brampton was there again in the late 1480s, I believe from 1487-1488, so he may have just missed him. David William was MoR during Brampton's second stay.
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?

Forster does seem the odd one out with these four., but the whatever Edward Woodville did with the Treasury is as good a guess as any. Different books seem to have different ideas as to what was actually taken, with some writers claiming there was nothing to take. However, there must have been some interference with Treasury finds or financial irregularity that formed the substance of the allegation.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 12:39:30
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary for the AALT link. How did you find the Indices pages? I must be missing something really obvious, but I'm starting to doubt my sanity! Nico

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:25:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

Robert Morton was Master of the Rolls, and in charge of the Domus from 9/1/1479-22/9/1483 and later from 22/8/1485-26/2/1487 with William Eliot. Brampton was there again in the late 1480s, I believe from 1487-1488, so he may have just missed him. David William was MoR during Brampton's second stay.
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?

Forster does seem the odd one out with these four., but the whatever Edward Woodville did with the Treasury is as good a guess as any. Different books seem to have different ideas as to what was actually taken, with some writers claiming there was nothing to take. However, there must have been some interference with Treasury finds or financial irregularity that formed the substance of the allegation.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 13:21:03
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,

Can't stop, but I think these lists are of the provosts, not the scholars. Makes a big difference.


I agree about "poor" but such a large proportion of the scholars at that period would have been there on properly funded scholarships that Eton cannot have been socially elite in the way that it is now. Granted the boys had to earn the scholarship so had to have been able to get a primary education first.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 13:29:16
mariewalsh2003

The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?).


Quickly again. I think you are basing this on the St. Albans Abbey Register, which seems to have been written up quite a bit later (at least, this entry does). What it actually says (from memory) is that Hastings was executed at the meeting held at the Tower on 12 June (I think it may say Friday, which was really 13th, but I'm not sure), and that Forster was arrested the following day. Or something which works out to that effect. Forster's petition to HVII's parliament confirms that he was arrested at Mawdelyns on Saturday 14 June, the day after the Tower meeting.

So there was no advance notice when it came to Forster. Richard clearly knew what was happening but to have arrested any one individual the day before the planned coup would have been to alert the rest.


I agree about London. London was a city kings had to woo, and which might even lock them out in times of war. Other cities, such as York and Coventry, lived in fear of the royal wrath if they supported an unsuccessful rebellion.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 13:33:04
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


To get to the index you need to click on Mod IDX, not the year - as set out in my 'structions. It doesn't matter which year you click it on, it will take you to the same contents list of indexes. Only then do you look for 1500 CP 40/951.


You've missed a step.



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 14:16:47
Hilary Jones
Yes you're right it was Saturday 14 June (or so he says) and at Welde Hall Herts though Maudelyns features a lot

Henry VII: November 1485, Part 1 | British History Online
Henry VII: November 1485, Part 1 | British History Online


Of course if Hastings wasn't executed until a week later all this could still apply. I still don't understand the leniency of the other sentences and I wouldn't trust Forster an inch. As I recall it it's all down to the interpretation of Stalworth's letter - i.e. the fact that he was sick and that it was written by different hands no doubt at different times? H

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 13:29:19 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?).


Quickly again. I think you are basing this on the St. Albans Abbey Register, which seems to have been written up quite a bit later (at least, this entry does). What it actually says (from memory) is that Hastings was executed at the meeting held at the Tower on 12 June (I think it may say Friday, which was really 13th, but I'm not sure), and that Forster was arrested the following day. Or something which works out to that effect. Forster's petition to HVII's parliament confirms that he was arrested at Mawdelyns on Saturday 14 June, the day after the Tower meeting.

So there was no advance notice when it came to Forster. Richard clearly knew what was happening but to have arrested any one individual the day before the planned coup would have been to alert the rest.


I agree about London. London was a city kings had to woo, and which might even lock them out in times of war. Other cities, such as York and Coventry, lived in fear of the royal wrath if they supported an unsuccessful rebellion.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 14:18:02
Hilary Jones
The scholars are later on from 1443 I think without looking
On Friday, 6 September 2019, 13:21:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Can't stop, but I think these lists are of the provosts, not the scholars. Makes a big difference.


I agree about "poor" but such a large proportion of the scholars at that period would have been there on properly funded scholarships that Eton cannot have been socially elite in the way that it is now. Granted the boys had to earn the scholarship so had to have been able to get a primary education first.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 15:08:14
Hilary Jones
I'm fine. It did take me a while to find the images though. Thanks a lot! H
On Friday, 6 September 2019, 13:33:07 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


To get to the index you need to click on Mod IDX, not the year - as set out in my 'structions. It doesn't matter which year you click it on, it will take you to the same contents list of indexes. Only then do you look for 1500 CP 40/951.


You've missed a step.



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 16:18:20
Doug Stamate
Marie, As it appears unlikely that were in classes together, whether at Eton or Cambridge, what do you think of the possibility that any originating link between them might have been via either whoever was the head of Eton while they were there or else someone at Cambridge? Neither place would have had that many people permanently attached, would they? For that matter, just how did one provide a resume/CV during the 15th century (presuming it wasn't all who knew whom)? Doug Who's never had a migraine, has never heard anything good about them and wishes you the best! Marie wrote: Hi, Can I just briefly gatecrash this most interesting discussion with the results of a night's migraine insomnia, before having to get back to other more pressing matters? First to say that the family connections that Hilary has teased out are very interesting, and show how these people were able to broach such delicate thoughts to each other and get a plot going, but I agree with Doug that they are in no way an explanation of motivation. It's not as if they would just get together for an extended family coffee morning (with no coffee as it hadn't reached Europe yet), had a chat about starting a hobby together and someone piped up "Why not lets kill the Duke of Gloucester?" To embark on an enterprise so dangerous, the personal motivations have to be very strong. That is why all the other people they were related to them to do not seem to have participated - they lacked those personal motivations. Doug's summary of likely motives is, I think, as good as anything we can come up with given the limitations of the sources. Regarding the individuals and their family backgrounds:

John Forster: Yes indeed, he was a son of Stephen Forster the former mayor and his wife Agnes the Ludgate prison reformer, and his sister Agnes as married to a London Robert Moreton whose will suggests that he must have been related to Bishop John. But, just to be picky, Robert M. made his will in May 1486, not 1487, and he does not eulogise the Bishops of Ely and Worcester. He is simply using the sort of obsequious form of address that was usual when people were asking such lofty churchmen for favours; and that is what he was doing: first wanting them to pray for his soul (for which he left them a silver-gilt cup each) and then naming them first of his executors. He doesn't state the relationship, and I suspect it was not terribly close - not brothers, for instance - and that it mattered more to Robert than it did to the exalted bishops, respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls at this date, because they didn't turn up to be sworn in as executors, leaving the task entirely to Robert's widow, Agnes Forster.

I may be completely wrong, but I don't recall that we have any evidence that St. Albans Abbey set Forster and Hastings against each other by passing the Abbey stewardship from one to the other. They seem to have been co-stewards (perhaps Forster was rather like a deputy as this wasn't the sort of post Hastings could be expected to actually fulfil personally), and the rivalry was between them and Catesby, who picked up the stewardship after their downfall. So this post places Hastings and Forster together rather than the reverse.

And, just to remind ourselves, Robert Morton of London is not known to have been in any way involved with any plots against Richard, and nor was John Forster's other surviving sibling, Stephen the London priest.

Thomas Rotherham: I'll start with the health warning regarding Sterry's Eton College Register, because he makes it clear that for the very early period the sources regarding scholars are very very patchy. There are lists only for 1444, 1446, 1453, 1467, 1468 and 1469. These apparently were published in Etoniana,l 1, p. 177, but I've not been able to find it online. There is an Etoniana, vol 1, online but it can't be the right one because it doesn't contain these lists.

Thomas Rotherham. First to say that of course the Scot/Rotherham and King brothers were not all "in the same class." Sterry seems to have inferred Thomas Rotherham's presence at Eton from the fact that he became a scholar at King's College, Cambridge, in July 1443, a bare three years after Eton's foundation, and that his brother John appears in the Eton records, so definitely did go. By 1461 Thomas was a Doctor of Divinity. So he is a rather older than the King brothers. His younger brother John is said by Sterry to have started at Eton in 1445. In 1448 he too went up to King's - I can only assume that this means he appears on the 1446 list of Eton scholars but not on that for 1444.

Oliver King. Hilary lists three King brothers at Eton at the same time - Oliver, Alexander and John. In fact, Alexander was Oliver's brother, but not John. Oliver and Alexander were Londoners, and can be found together in at least one later document in a way that strongly suggests they were brothers (in 1452 London fishmonger Thomas Papley girfted all his goods to Robert Pecche, esq, John Bernewall, fishmonger, and Alexander and Oliver King of Cambridge, their heirs and assigns). The John King who attended Eton during this general period came from Cherry Hinton near Cambridge so probably no relation given that King is a very common surname.

Oliver King 's dates at Eton are left vague by Sterry, but he went up to King's, Cambridge, in 1449. His brother Alexander had started at King's the year before, having entered Eton as a King's Scholar in 1446 at the relatively advanced age of 14. It seems to me that Alexander was the elder of the two, for reasons I will explain, but Oliver was clearly the one with the brains.

One clue as to their birth family is given by Sterry. He tells us that in 1447 Alexander King and his mother Alice Nedeham received a grant from the King in 1447 of the goods of Alice's husband Robert Nedeham who had conspired to kill the King (it is this document that confirms for me that Alexander was the elder brother). Now, I drew a blank with this Robert Nedeham so I decided to look up Sterry's source for this, which was the Patent Rolls. It transpired that Alice's husband was actually called Richard Nedeham, and finding out more about him has proved fairly easy. He had been a household servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, was arrested with him at Bury St Edmunds in February 1447, and was one of those unfortunate to have been tried before Suffolk in July 1447 and condemned to be hanged, drawn and quartered. They all, famously, received a pardon from the final, fatal bits of their sentence just after they had been cut down from the gallows, and so survived. Nedeham received a pardon the following October. I still have much more to find out about him, but time is not available at present; he threw himself into city affairs, by the look of it; I have him as an alderman in the mid 1450s, and one of the city sheriffs in 1458-9. There are other published documents in involving Nedeham. I noticed in passing on the BHO website, but haven't had the opportunity to look at them in more detail.

Obviously, whoever Oliver and Alexander's father was, we are looking for a Londoner married to an Alice who was dead by 1446 at the latest.

Anyhow, all means there was a bit - but not much - of an overlap between the Eton careers of Oliver King and John Scot/ Rotherham, but none at all between Oliver and his fellow plotter Thomas Rotherham. Similarly with regard to King's College: by the time the King brothers got there Thomas Rotherham would have been a fairly mature postgrad. They would have been aware of him, perhaps got to know him on some level, but there would have been a big role distance there.

Last point is for Hilary on on Elizabeth Woodville and the Holy Trinity Guild. She was a sister of the Guild. Take a look at Anne Sutton & Livia's article on EW's piety, "A 'Most Benevolent Queen'...", Ricardian, vol 10 (No 129), June 1995.

Best to all,

Marie


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 17:11:56
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


Thanks for all this. 1444 makes more sense for the grant of custody to Nedeham than 1452.

So Oliver definitely was younger than Alexander, and there was a still older brother Hugh.


I'll look into the King family properly at some future date, when I have the time, but it's good to have this as a basis to work from. I find it puzzling that this John Jr could have been another brother unless he was much older, since he's not listed amongst King's children in the 1442 grant of custody, nor is he involved in the gift of Thomas Papley's goods in 1452, which I also came across (that just has Alexander and Oliver). No doubt I'll find out once I turn my attention to it.


I think we're agreed we're not talking about poor in the usual sense. Medieval nobility had rather a loose definition of the word. But we're not talking about the place the monarchs, nobility and county set went out of their way to send their sons either. Those families educated their sons at home. Eton was a brand-new institution when Rotherham and King attended, and cannot have yet bedded down into the social fabric.

I'm quite sure reverence for King Henry was a big part of what bound the former students of Eton and King's together, and that would be the one thing that would link them to Morton emotionally.


Marie




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-06 17:26:10
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I've fallen a bit behind, but in my reply to Marie's message I mentioned the possibility that the connection between Rotherham and the King brothers might have been, not because they'd been at Eton or Cambridge together, but simply because they had been at Eton and Cambridge with the connection possibly being those who headed/taught at Eton and Cambridge. IOW, might that Old Boy Network also have included teachers/staff? Lacking further information tying these people together for some other reason, it still seems to me that the one connection between Rotherham/the King brothers/Forster and even Morton was the difference in their future prospects under Richard as king as opposed to young Edward remaining on the throne. I do find the punishments they received after Hastings' execution interesting. Morton was placed in Buckingham's custody, Rotherham was briefly confined then released, Forster remained in jail until after the October Rebellion had been dealt with and King was dismissed from his position in government. What I take away from that is that King and Rotherham weren't considered to have been involved in the attempt on Richard's life, but were thought to have had information that they should have passed on to Richard and the Council. Forster was apparently retained in custody because of his close ties to EW, especially his position as her Treasurer (follow the money likely applied in 15th century politics as much as today). That Morton, OTOH, was given into Buckingham's custody, rather than popped into a cell, tells me that Morton was likely deeply involved in the Hastings' plot, but provided services that mitigated his punishment. IOW, he squealed. I also don't think what happened in May/June 1483 was in any way an attempt to set up Hastings; rather his involvement was due to what he stood to lose should Richard become king. And if, as is entirely possible, Hastings doubted the veracity of the Pre-Contract claims, he'd have a further motive in opposing what he saw as an attempt to depose the rightful king. A mix of interest and idealism, as it were. Doug Hilary wrote: Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point. Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough.. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings.. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 04:20:28
Doug Stamate
Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost... Nico wrote: Hi Hilary, https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136 The Beaumont/Beaumonds and Spaynes are certainly painstaking research. I found a few Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Berkshire families in the visitations and rolls, but nothing that specifically pins down exactly who Thomas and Margaret's father was, but I keep coming back to it. I think they are of the same family as the London Thomas and John. Estimating the age group of John Spayne and Thomas Beaumond in the commitment entry of 1396 they could be great or great great grandparents of Thomas and Margaret. Possibly there was intermarriage between the families of over several generations. Clearly both families had s ome local status.
That is an interesting observation about the lack of prayers for Thomas Beaumond's father. If Emme Spayne was described as widow in the common pleas, Mr.Beaumond must be long dead, presuming that Mr. Spayne was a subsequent husband of Emme's.As far as I know, medieval women took the name of their husbands, but was it always the case? I'm no expert on medieval wills, but from the ones I have read, prayers for deceased close relatives do appear standard in wills from that time. Even if Mr. Beaumond died when his children were young, it would still be a courtesy to ask for prayers for him. Would ignoring your parents in a will be a grave insult to them, suggesting some sort of animosity? Could the Thomas and Margaret have been illegitimate? Perhaps Emme was born a Beaumond and the children had her name then she married Mr. Spayne - just a thought. Oliver King i s mentioned in the will. Could have have been his fat her, not just a mentor? If his was the son of a priest that may have been a reason to keep things quiet.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 07:15:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, so sorry, we had a Yahoo crash yesterday and I had to re-write everything. Firstly, re the Guild I think it was probably to do with enhancing the reputation of members of the Rotherham family in Luton. Thomas Rotherham had established others in the area. It was licensed on 12 May 1474 to Thomas Rotherham, John Rotherham and eleven other mainly local Luton people such as John Acworth. Barbara Tearle, who edits the Guild Book, suggests that it was both to enhance the position of John Rotherham, who was principle landowner in Luton and to consolidate Rotherham's position as Chancellor to Edward. Doug here: I think I've discover why the Guild was set up to pray for the souls of Edward IV, EW, Cecily and the DoY without any mention of the other members of the Royal Family. According to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_of_York#Birth_and_family Cecily was contracted to marry the heir to the Scottish throne in 1474. It is Wikipedia, but if the information is incorrect as to the date/s, we should be able to quickly sort that out. Hilary continued: As for the rest, I've had a different thought on all this. The story as told and rehashed by many goes something like this: The day before the meeting in the Tower (12 June) Forster is arrested in Hertfordshire. The next day some members of the Council meet - those named are Richard, Buckingham, Stanley, Morton, Rotherham and King (have I missed anyone?). And of course Hastings; but does he arrive at the same time as them or later wielding a sword? According to various versions there are either weapons concealed in the room (how?) or soldiers ready to pounce on Richard and Buckingham at Hastings' behest. Morton then toddles off to get strawberries - does he get back before the action (so bizarre it must be true)? At some point either Richard turns on Hastings, or Hastings bursts in. There is a scuffle. Hastings is carted off and either executed then or a week later (depending on how you interpret the different writers of Stalworth's letter) and three clerics approaching pensionable age are sent to the Tower where they get the equivalent of what would today be Community Service. And Forster gets about the same, or slightly more depending who you believe. For plotting to kill Richard? That's mad! Sir Thomas Cooke found himself facing a charge of treason 'just' for lending money to MOA! Doug here: FWIW, my understanding is that the Council meeting on 13 June was attended by all members of both committees, the one that had been in charge of the coronation preparations and those who'd regularly met at the Tower handling everything else. My understanding of what occurred is that the entire Council met in the morning, followed by a break for lunch and then resumed its' meeting. The strawberries were supposedly requested of Morton by Richard just after the morning meeting had broken up. Morton agreed to provide some, but when/if he ever did so isn't known. I do seriously doubt he'd fetch them himself, however. I also have my doubts about whether those references were to an actual berry... The only records we have of the afternoon meeting are, I believe, whatever More wrote, with possibly some additions in Hall's Chronicle. Just how accurate either of them is the question. Supposedly, after declaiming on EW's witchcraft, Richard called guards he'd stationed outside the Council meeting room and they charged in shouting Treason! This was followed by a scuffle/fight and Hastings being bundled out and beheaded. Regarding Hastings, Morton, Rotherham and King, there's the difference between treason and misprision of treason to be considered, especially the latter. Again according to Wikipedia, misprision of treason ...is committed where a person knows that treason is being planned or committed and does not report as soon as he can to a justice of the peace or other authority. The offender does not need to consent to the treason; mere knowledge is enough. (my emphasis) So what I'm wondering is were the plotters divided; if not in their aims, then in their actions? Thus there'd be Morton, Rotherham, King and Hastings all plotting to eliminate Richard as Protector (again my emphasis), but only Morton and Hastings were found to be involved in the plot against Richard's life. Or at least there only was sufficient evidence against them to prove such a charge. Thus we have Hastings being executed for his part in the plot and Morton being placed in Buckingham's custody. The latter does seem unusual if he was also involved in a plot against Richard's life, but what if Morton traded information for his life? (Yes, it's those d*mned strawberries again!) If Morton ratted, perhaps that was part of the agreement? His life in return for the information that would definitely convict Hastings? Rotherham and King, OTOH, may have acknowledged they were involved in some plot to remove Richard as Protector, but denied knowing that Hastings and Morton intended to kill Richard. Hastings' death removed one source for determining whether they were truthful or not. As for Morton, even if he claimed Rotherham and King had been involved in the plot to kill Richard, why should Richard, or anyone, believe him? Regardless of whether they were involved or not, it would definitely be to Morton's advantage to claim they hadn't. Hilary continued: What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way? Doug here: The letter to York was on sent on 10 June, Forster was arrested on 12 June (although Skidmore [for whatever that's worth] has Forster claiming to have been arrested on 14 June), which tells me that at some time before Forster was arrested, Richard got wind that something big was up. If, as I believe, the plot that led to Hastings' execution came into being because of the Pre_contract, then EW had even more reason to spread some money around than she'd had when Richard was just making his way South to take up the Protectorate. However, there is that discrepancy in dates. If Forster was arrested on 12 June, then there might be just enough time for some piece of information, given up by Forster or found in his possession, to be gotten to Richard in London. Information that involved Hastings and Morton directly in the plot. OTOH, if Forster was arrested on 14 June, it would appear more likely his arrest was because of his general involvement with EW, and possibly others in her circle. An interesting point is that, as best I can determine, Forster spent, by his own account, 40 weeks in confinement. Forty weeks is approximately 10 months and 10 months from mid-June 1483 is mid-April 1484. Just about a month after EW left sanctuary. IOW, whatever information found against Forster, it wasn't enough to bring him to trial for treason, so he was kept, if you will, incommunicado. FWIW, it's starting to look to me as if this might be a case of the left hand (Forster, possibly Rotherham and King) not knowing what the right hand (EW, Morton and Hastings) is doing. Perhaps that's one reason it's been so difficult tying them all together in the June plot against Richard because they weren't all in it together? Hilary concluded: Forster, being Forster, says something like 'I don't know why you're arresting me, you should look at what Hastings is up to, he hates Buckingham and wants him and your master out of the way. And whilst you're looking, have a look at what Morton's up to with MB. EW's told me all about that'. Forster's been in Ludgate and knows how to 'bribe' captors or get a commuted sentence for information. He also knows that Richard is in a high state of alert, as is witnessed by the letter to York. Forster's captors (Richard's servants) tell Richard what Forster has said and the meeting goes ahead. Now I also think it reasonable to believe that at this stage Richard is mentally quite fragile. He's not had proper time to mourn Edward, he's been under siege for a lot of the time since he set out from York and he's in a city where he is faced with rebuilding trust. He starts to think that Hastings had probably lured him into the Rivers trap and, as we know, you can soon start to conjecture all sorts of things - just as I'm doing here :) So it would only take Hastings to make one unwise throwaway remark in that meeting for Richard to interpret it as proof of his guilt and bingo! The clerics, on the other hand, have time to deny their guilt, though Richard no longer trusts them and does believe the bit about Morton. Too much back history around HT. And Richard of course in due time lives to regret his haste. Was Forster correct or was it a revenge mission over St Albans and all that had happened to EW? Doug here: I don't think there's any evidence that Hastings hated Buckingham, and Richard; certainly not to the extent that he'd be drawn into a conspiracy to kill for that reason alone. However, add in the possible replacement of Edward V with Richard III and one might have something. Unfortunately, adding in that as a possible (probable?) motive for Hastings then brings in others with the same motive. People such as EW and those in her family and affinity. Morton, while he might maneuver to try and replace Richard as Protector or reduce the Protector's powers, had no motive for any actions more drastic than those until the possibility arose that young Edward might be replaced as king by his uncle. I do agree that, to a certain degree, Richard was out of his element when he first arrived in London. He didn't know many people there and had to rely on those he already trusted to help him make his way through the ins and outs of the power structure. I don't know that I'd use the word fragile,' however. I do think that, after Stony Stratford he relaxed, so to speak. However, I think that relaxed state ended when the Pre-Contract came before the Council. By the way, one of the reasons I believe the Pre-Contract had come before the Council some time before the meeting on 13 June is the letter Richard sent north to York on 10 June where he plainly says that there's a plot and he believes EW is behind it: ...there to assist us against the queen, her bloody adherents and affinity, which have intended [Stony Stratford?] and daily doth intend to murder and utterly destroy us and our cousin the Duke of Buckingham and the old royal blood of this realm... (my emphasis). Now, I can easily understand a plot against Richard, either as Protector or potential king, but why include Buckingham? And why the reference to the old royal blood of this realm? However, if the Pre-Contract had already come before the Council and the Council was debating whether or not to accept the proofs provided in its' support, what better way of making the question moot than removing any other possible alternatives to young Edward? I have to say that I don't think Hastings was set up and, while there may have clashes over things such as that at St. Albans between those involved, I don't think they were enough, in and of themselves, to push any of those involved into a conspiracy to kill Richard and Buckingham. They might have made a very difficult decision slightly easier, but no more. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 10:26:59
Hilary Jones
Doug wrote:
I've fallen a bit behind, but in my reply to Marie's message I mentioned the possibility that the connection between Rotherham and the King brothers might have been, not because they'd been at Eton or Cambridge together, but simply because they had been at Eton and Cambridge with the connection possibly being those who headed/taught at Eton and Cambridge. IOW, might that Old Boy Network also have included teachers/staff?

Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?
The jury is still out with me on Hastings's guilt but I do think Forster is more likely to have squealed than Morton. In fact in his plea to HT he says that he was kept so long to get information (and money) out of him. And I do think there could have been quite a strong Forster/Morton connection - Forster's widow went on to marry a Turbeville. I actually don't have Rotherham as a 'plotter'. Anyone who was naive enough to give the Great Seal to EW doesn't sound like someone who acts under cover. I do have King as someone whose role has been very overlooked. He was one of only about three or four people who ever got close to HT when he became king and remained so until his death. He must have done something to earn that.
As I said, work in progress. H
On Friday, 6 September 2019, 17:26:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I've fallen a bit behind, but in my reply to Marie's message I mentioned the possibility that the connection between Rotherham and the King brothers might have been, not because they'd been at Eton or Cambridge together, but simply because they had been at Eton and Cambridge with the connection possibly being those who headed/taught at Eton and Cambridge. IOW, might that Old Boy Network also have included teachers/staff? Lacking further information tying these people together for some other reason, it still seems to me that the one connection between Rotherham/the King brothers/Forster and even Morton was the difference in their future prospects under Richard as king as opposed to young Edward remaining on the throne. I do find the punishments they received after Hastings' execution interesting. Morton was placed in Buckingham's custody, Rotherham was briefly confined then released, Forster remained in jail until after the October Rebellion had been dealt with and King was dismissed from his position in government. What I take away from that is that King and Rotherham weren't considered to have been involved in the attempt on Richard's life, but were thought to have had information that they should have passed on to Richard and the Council. Forster was apparently retained in custody because of his close ties to EW, especially his position as her Treasurer (follow the money likely applied in 15th century politics as much as today). That Morton, OTOH, was given into Buckingham's custody, rather than popped into a cell, tells me that Morton was likely deeply involved in the Hastings' plot, but provided services that mitigated his punishment. IOW, he squealed. I also don't think what happened in May/June 1483 was in any way an attempt to set up Hastings; rather his involvement was due to what he stood to lose should Richard become king. And if, as is entirely possible, Hastings doubted the veracity of the Pre-Contract claims, he'd have a further motive in opposing what he saw as an attempt to depose the rightful king. A mix of interest and idealism, as it were. Doug Hilary wrote: Marie, I'll reply in more detail when I've digested all your reply.. But when you say about them having a coffee morning or whatever I exactly agree - they are a most unusual group. That was my point. Now the old Etonians could have got each other a job, fair enough.. And they're all connected with Kings College as well But Morton doesn't fit with that As I've said I've no answer really, other than somehow it was to set up Hastings.. Re the Morton will well I spend a lot of my life in wills and he does rather go over the top. That is unless he thinks they can pave his way to heaven. He could have been their nephew - son of brother William.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 10:35:54
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, here's the other John King:
Court of Common Pleas, CP 40/752, rot. 130dTerm: Hilary 1449County: MiddlesexWrit type: Debt (other)Damages claimed: 60sCase type: Contract (general)Pleading: John Kyng, Thomas Davy and John Morley, executors of John Kyng, and Alice Nedam, former wife and co-executor of John Kyng, and her new husband Richard, state that on 30 May 1439, and on various occasions over the next five years, Thomas Wylde retained John Kyng, the testator, for £4 6s 10d, to alter and sew 39 gowns, 8 hats, one tunic and one lined gown. JK did this work, for which he was entitled to this £4 6s 10d, but TW has not paid this, either to JK, his wife or his executors, to their damage of 60s. They show in court the testamentary letters of JK, by which they have executry and administration.
Pleading: TW granted licence to imparl to quindene of Easter.
Postea text: 7 further licences to imparl, to octave of Hilary 1451.
Case notes: see also CP 40/755, rot 124d
And this is not his only appearance. I did wonder whether he could instead have been a brother of John King senior with the same name? It's not helped by there being quite a few John Kings around in London at the time.
BTW the Forsters originally came from Stanton Drew in Somerset (home of the Chokkes). It's in Stephen's will. I do wonder whether the Robert Forster, mayor of Bristol, was a brother of Stephen. If so there's a link to the Cheddar/Talbots. More work!
I agree entirely with the Henry VI connection. H

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 17:11:58 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


Thanks for all this. 1444 makes more sense for the grant of custody to Nedeham than 1452.

So Oliver definitely was younger than Alexander, and there was a still older brother Hugh.


I'll look into the King family properly at some future date, when I have the time, but it's good to have this as a basis to work from. I find it puzzling that this John Jr could have been another brother unless he was much older, since he's not listed amongst King's children in the 1442 grant of custody, nor is he involved in the gift of Thomas Papley's goods in 1452, which I also came across (that just has Alexander and Oliver). No doubt I'll find out once I turn my attention to it.


I think we're agreed we're not talking about poor in the usual sense. Medieval nobility had rather a loose definition of the word. But we're not talking about the place the monarchs, nobility and county set went out of their way to send their sons either. Those families educated their sons at home. Eton was a brand-new institution when Rotherham and King attended, and cannot have yet bedded down into the social fabric.

I'm quite sure reverence for King Henry was a big part of what bound the former students of Eton and King's together, and that would be the one thing that would link them to Morton emotionally.


Marie




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 10:37:24
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, me butting in for Nico. We wish we did - we still are trying to find who he was :)
It's very easy to get lost in all this! H
On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 04:20:31 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost... Nico wrote: Hi Hilary, https://archive.org/details/somersetmedieva01weavgoog/page/n136 The Beaumont/Beaumonds and Spaynes are certainly painstaking research. I found a few Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire/Berkshire families in the visitations and rolls, but nothing that specifically pins down exactly who Thomas and Margaret's father was, but I keep coming back to it. I think they are of the same family as the London Thomas and John. Estimating the age group of John Spayne and Thomas Beaumond in the commitment entry of 1396 they could be great or great great grandparents of Thomas and Margaret. Possibly there was intermarriage between the families of over several generations. Clearly both families had s ome local status.
That is an interesting observation about the lack of prayers for Thomas Beaumond's father. If Emme Spayne was described as widow in the common pleas, Mr.Beaumond must be long dead, presuming that Mr. Spayne was a subsequent husband of Emme's.As far as I know, medieval women took the name of their husbands, but was it always the case? I'm no expert on medieval wills, but from the ones I have read, prayers for deceased close relatives do appear standard in wills from that time. Even if Mr. Beaumond died when his children were young, it would still be a courtesy to ask for prayers for him. Would ignoring your parents in a will be a grave insult to them, suggesting some sort of animosity? Could the Thomas and Margaret have been illegitimate? Perhaps Emme was born a Beaumond and the children had her name then she married Mr. Spayne - just a thought. Oliver King i s mentioned in the will. Could have have been his fat her, not just a mentor? If his was the son of a priest that may have been a reason to keep things quiet.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 12:48:14
Hilary Jones
I take it you got Marie's reply. Don't worry, I can't even remember how to spell names and places properly after doses of this.
Silly thought, our scrivener Robert Spayne was a writer in the Courts (it says so in a case where he was a plaintiff). If Emme was his widow - and he vanishes around 1480 - then she'd know the Court system wouldn't she? The other thing is how a brewer/vintner would owe you, I could see you owing them :)? That is unless she and Thomas had given him a loan. I'm used to old writing but this 'clerical hand' is very hard to read. Thanks Robert!! H
On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:39:34 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary for the AALT link. How did you find the Indices pages? I must be missing something really obvious, but I'm starting to doubt my sanity! Nico

On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:25:55 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
BTW I saw somewhere that Robert (Master of the Rolls) Morton had some dealings with the Domus in the 1480s?

Robert Morton was Master of the Rolls, and in charge of the Domus from 9/1/1479-22/9/1483 and later from 22/8/1485-26/2/1487 with William Eliot. Brampton was there again in the late 1480s, I believe from 1487-1488, so he may have just missed him. David William was MoR during Brampton's second stay.
What if we've all paid too little attention to Forster's arrest the day before? Now as EW's former 'finance man' I think it's reasonable to assume he must have been under surveillance since perhaps before even Richard arrived in London. If she wanted to do much, she'd need money and look at the earlier Woodville actions re the Treasury. So Forster's arrest could have been nothing to do with a plot to kill Richard, probably a lesser charge of contact with EW or to keep him out of the way?

Forster does seem the odd one out with these four., but the whatever Edward Woodville did with the Treasury is as good a guess as any. Different books seem to have different ideas as to what was actually taken, with some writers claiming there was nothing to take. However, there must have been some interference with Treasury finds or financial irregularity that formed the substance of the allegation.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 12:06:54 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Thanks for the info about how to use the AALT. I'm still having some problems, as I can't find the the 'sorted by' option. The sequence I get is: Home Page Enter Site List of Kings
Years with types of cases Click Year (1500 - CP40/951) Fronts/Dorses Thumbnails of cases
The cases come through quite clear (my paleography is rusty though). There is a search engine for the case type, but Emma Spayne didn't yield any results. I must be getting something wrong.
Nico


On Friday, 6 September 2019, 11:01:51 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Marie,
Here's the other link:
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King's College, Cambridge. The Fellows of Eton. Alumni Etonenses; in annual succession from Eton to King's College: from the foundation of Eton College 1441 to 1847: with illustrative
Registrum Regale: A List of the Provosts of Eton. The Provost's of King'...

null



Now strangely, or perhaps not strangely, I do know quite a few of these people and the dates, as with the Kings, do fit. And quite a few went on to King's College, and, as you can say we can check them against the alumni lists there. I think the 'poor boys' thing is a matter of the definition of poor. I don't for a minute think they were plough-boys, the Greswolds, for example go back to at least the 1230s. And some are misspellings. Thomas Bower is probably Thomas Bowes. Notice John Skilling is there. Now we can of course check them out by looking at their individual records and I would say, although this isn't contemporary it's a pretty good stab. Do we have a similar list for Winchester?. BTW I did some work years' ago on grammar schools in the sixteenth century which were also guild schools for the 'poor'. The poor, like Shakespeare, were all sons of local gentry and dignitaries.
Why am I 'jumping about'? Well we're I think looking at two topics here - the world before and after 1485. The people who were probably opposed to Richard in 1483 and favoured the Woodvilles (and indeed some of those who favoured Richard) could have come together in the years after Bosworth when the Yorkist cause was desperate. What we are creeping towards is a number of families who are associated with the Perkin Warbeck affair, and possibly the Wilfsord affair As a previous PW sceptic I'm quite optimistic about that. We're also seeing the immense power and influence of the City of London. I would ask what happened in London in the days after Bosworth before Henry reached there (he went to Guildford)? And the trouble is that when you're investigating, say, Rotherham or King re June 1483 they take you to other connections which could have implications to the later world. You'll know, I'm sure, that you investigate something and it throws up things relating to other topics. So I apologise if you find it confusing. I know you don't like how I work.
So, to keep things separate, I'm going to put my response about 1483 in a reply to Doug. I have had some more thoughts on that. Cheers:) H
On Thursday, 5 September 2019, 17:55:05 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary - the link you sent is to provosts and fellows, I'm afraid. I can't say much about your online database of scholars since I haven't seen it, except that, if this is what it says, it is wrong.


I used Sterry, which is the standard work, and which I bought on CD years ago. As he says, there *are* no extant lists of scholars for the early period other than for the years I listed in my previous email; any database that suggests different is fantasising. According to Sterry, Rotherham started at Cambridge in 1443 and the King brothers not for a few years after that, but that can now be checked as Cambridge have put their historical alumni on an online database:

http://venn.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search-2018.pl?sur=king&suro=w&fir=oliver&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&z=all&tex=&sye=1440&eye=1460&col=all&maxcount=50


As you can see from the Cambridge database, Rotherham went up to King's College from Eton in July 1443 (just as per my previous email). That is the only evidence for his having attended Eton. I suspect whoever wrote your online database needed reading glasses and mistook the 3 for an 8.

Oliver King was admitted to King's from Eton in 1449, just as per my previous email.


Please could you elucidate Richard Nedeham being given the guardianship of Oliver, John and Alexander in April 1451? Like a source, please, please? I have found nothing else to indicate that John was a brother (he wasn't born in London).


I suspect it looks superficially as though the scholars were top gentry because maybe your database is concentrating on people with famous later careers? Who for instance, was John King of Cherry Hinton? Who was the father of Oliver and Alexander? Certainly, looking at Sterry's register you have to be very careful taking a view from a quick glance, because it covers scholars up to 1698, they are listed alphabetically, not by date (i.e. all mixed up together as far as period is concerned), and there are many more of them for the later periods because the records are more complete.

It's just a fact that the college was set up to provide scholarships for "poor boys".


I'm sorry, you rather confused me moving seamlessly from St. Albans Abbey (diocese of Lincoln) to the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield, and I'm afraid I'm not following the significance to the Hastings Plot. Rotherham's nephew Geoffrey Blythe wasn't ordained until 1496.


I have to admit I'm not following the stuff about France either, I'm afraid. I don't think we have any evidence at this point of French involvement, but somebody might find some if they were prepared to trawl through the French records. I do think we need to keep our feet on the ground while we're looking around for evidence or we're likely to fall over (or is that just me?).


As regards the vacancy left by Rotherham's "bad move" (i.e. the chancellorship), that had already gone to John Russell.


Best,

Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 18:40:51
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
Re Eton, it looks to me as if, adding together the size of the yearly classes, the staff, the newness of the school and its' patron (Henry VI), there's a good possibility for the development of that Old Boys network. I don't think, however, we should limit such a network, at least during these formative years, to just those attending classes, but should also add in those I also mentioned. And as poor is a relative term, it seems most likely that term is being used for sons such as those of the minor gentry and small shop-owners. One question does come to mind, though. Am I correct that every graduate of Eton didn't go on to University? Or did attendance at Eton at that time also provide funds for further schooling at King's College for those who needed it?
The major points against Forster are the dates and his treatment after 13 (20?) June, 1483. Morton, as you mentioned, seems to have come up extremely well for someone seemingly involved in not just a plot to remove/hobble the Protector, but to actually kill him (and Buckingham, if Richard's sources were accurate). Forster, OTOH, was tossed into jail and remained there as long as EW remained in sanctuary. Which says to me that once Richard no longer had to try and track down from where EW was getting money and where she was sending it, Forster lost any value he may have had. FWIW, I see Forster as a faithful functionary of EW and not anyone involved in any plots/conspiracies. His job was to gather in those funds owed to EW and dispense them as directed, with that last likely being what interested Richard: just who was EW sending money to, how much and for what purposes?
I agree with you that Rotherham and King are unlikely to have plotted to kill Richard and Buckingham. However, and this is where it gets a bit complicated, I also believe that they were plotting. I base this on how the government functioned in the 15th century. The King, in this case, the Protector, ruled in agreement with the Council, supported by Parliament. With a King in the chair, so to speak, opposition to whatever the King might propose would be very limited and would cease, at least publicly, once a decision had been made by the King and even if that decision was against the advice of a majority of the Council. A Protector didn't have that much authority and relied on keeping a majority of the Council on side. Thus there could be, and almost certainly were, decisions made by a majority of the Council that the Protector couldn't ignore. The problem was getting that majority. And it's in getting that anti-Protector majority that I believe Rotherham and King were involved. Rotherham was no longer Lord Chancellor, but he was still Archbishop of York and thus had some political clout. King was still, AFAIK, the King's Secretary for the Gallic Tongue, but otherwise had no means of influencing other members of the Council. If Richard, as Protector, was to be made subject to the Council, then a majority of the Council needed to be brought in line with that view. From what the Council did in May and June 1483, it's fairly safe to say that such a majority didn't exist. However, trying to get members of the Council to switch their support from supporting Richard, and his conception of what the Protector's roles and authority were, to supporting a conception of the Protector as something more on the order of what Duke Humphrey faced couldn't be done in the open. It would require all the arts of backstage maneuvering, making deals, even bribery, and all would have to be done without Richard getting wind of what was going on. It's also something that, or so I'd imagine, would take some time to accomplish, if it ever was.
Much also depended on how large the majority was that supported Richard. Right now it's my belief that the majority supporting Richard, while sufficient to run the government, wasn't overwhelming, and it was in trying to change that majority into a minority that Rotherham and King were involved. Almost certainly Morton was involved in this attempt to decrease the number of Council members supporting Richard, but I don't think Hastings was. Morton was still sidelined, but Hastings was in as good a position as he could expect after the loss of his royal patron.
I believe all that changed when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. Rotherham and King likely continued their efforts to woo Council members away from their support of Richard; OTOH, Morton and Hastings, and possibly in agreement with EW, likely realized that a majority of Council members not only supported Richard as Protector, but also viewed the proofs provided in support of the Pre-Contract as being convincing enough to offer the throne to him. Going by what happened, it appears that Morton and Hastings, realizing they couldn't turn enough Council members and have the Pre-Contract dismissed, decided to kill the persons who would benefit by its being accepted  Richard and Buckingham. Which would leave young Edward, already proclaimed king, likely in place.
Which, if my above reasonings are anywhere near what did happen, explains why Rotherham, King and Forster were treated as they were and why Hastings died. Morton is the odd one out, which is why I place him the position of being the rat. Had Forster been the informer, his treatment after Richard assumed the throne is inexplicable; while, if it was Morton who squealed, the treatment of both becomes more understandable.
Well, to me anyway...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?
The jury is still out with me on Hastings's guilt but I do think Forster is more likely to have squealed than Morton. In fact in his plea to HT he says that he was kept so long to get information (and money) out of him. And I do think there could have been quite a strong Forster/Morton connection - Forster's widow went on to marry a Turbeville. I actually don't have Rotherham as a 'plotter'. Anyone who was naive enough to give the Great Seal to EW doesn't sound like someone who acts under cover. I do have King as someone whose role has been very overlooked. He was one of only about three or four people who ever got close to HT when he became king and remained so until his death. He must have done something to earn that.
As I said, work in progress.




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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 18:44:17
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, me butting in for Nico. We wish we did - we still are trying to find who he was :)
It's very easy to get lost in all this!

That makes me feel a little better!
Doug





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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 20:29:28
mariewalsh2003


Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?



Marie, quickly again:

Hi. I'm afraid there may be some misunderstanding here. The list of alumni in the book you linked to, Hilary, does not be complete, and the low numbers were probably much lower than envisaged for the first few years anyway, which would reflect difficulty in recruiting to the new institution (I expect the pace was little better than a building site) The evidence of alumni for the early years is apparently very patchy, and according to Sterry there ARE no extant lists of scholars for most of these early years. Of the very early years, we only have them for 1444 and 1446, and I can't find the published version of these online.

The earliest college statutes, which were soon amended, were issued on 11 October 1440. This envisaged "provost, ten priests, four clerks, six choristers, twenty-five scholars, twenty-five beadsmen, and a school master" (Sterry, Eton College Register, p. xiv). At this time King's College, Cambridge was not yet up and running, and so the link between the two, whereby King's was to draw its intake entirely from boys who had studied at Eton for at least two years, was not yet envisaged.

King's College was founded in 1441, and in December 1443 the Eton statutes were revised by letters patent, tying the College to King's, Cambridge. The evidence of scholars is the following, and as you will see to a large degree it is based on the entrance records of King's (Sterry, p. xv):-

1) William Stokke and Richard Cokkes were nominated as scholars in the original Eton foundation charter 1440 (this also nominated four choristers, including a Henry Cokkes, two of whom later turn up on the list of scholars);

2) 1441 one John Pagett was provisionally placed on the register at Winchester College contingent on his not obtaining a nomination at Eton.

2) 17 September 1443 extant record John Langport and Robert Drummer being admitted to King's from Eton, having transferred to Eton from Winchester College (possibly in order to qualify for King's);

3) December 1443 a record of 11 scholars who had completed their 15th year taking the oath of fidelity to King's College. Cokkes does not appear on this list.

4) July 1444, Richard Cove, John Chedworth and Thomas Rotherham were admitted to King's. Not one of these may have been a genuine Eton boy, but only notionally enrolled as one in order to qualify for King's, as Cove had also transferred from Winchester, Chedworth was mature enough to become Provost of King's in 1446, and Rotherham was already 20 years old.

5) In 1445 we get the first specific statement that the number of scholars that Eton as to cater for had been raised to 70.


Historians of Eton are apparently divided over whether the Wykehamists (Winchester scholars) ever genuinely studied at Eton or not. Tradition insists that William Waynflete was appointed headmaster of Eton in 1441 and took these scholars with him, but Leach has shown that Waynflete was still at Winchester in October 1441, and only came to Eton as Provost on 21 December 1442.

Sterry concludes that some teaching did start at Eton at the beginning of 1441, and that is is why we see the first regular election to King's in 1443 (i.e. after the requisite two years' study at Eton).


The number of scholars that King's could accommodate was very low, only 11, so it would seem reasonable to suppose there were many Eton boys who never made it to King's and so whose names were do not have.


Apparently Henry's statutes envisaged some sons of the nobility and gentry attending Eton in addition to the scholars who, although described in the statutes as 'pauper et indigens' were to come from freeborn families possessing an income of no more than 5 marks a year.

The question of fees is a bit vague in Sterry. It is generally said the scholars had free education, but Sterry says at 16 scholars took an oath that they had not more income than that in return for paying fees of 10d a week. Given that 16 is the sort of age boys tended to go up to university back then, I wonder if these fees don't really relate to King's.

As Hilary says, in practice scholars hoping to go on to university could not be from genuinely poor families, and the little evidence we have suggests that the early scholars came from the middle classes, some from families fairly prominent in their county, others not.


As regards Doug's question - I still think the really big thing for these men would have been their links with the founder, Henry VI, who had taken a huge interest in his college and its students, and by 1483 was widely regarded as a saint. No names leaped out at me when I looked at the list of provosts, and these people, if still alive in 1443, would have been very old. Bishop Waynflete, although Provost of Eton 1442-7, remained a Wykehamist at heart, and later founded Magdalen College at Oxford to provide Winchester scholars with the same through-route to university that the Eton boys enjoyed. Also, he didn't oppose Richard, and indeed took him to visit Magdalen, having his college put on a great feast and even a scholastic disputation for Richard's benefit when he passed through Oxford on his progress in 1483.


Old Henrician sympathies would be an interesting angle to look at these plotters. It would certainly link Morton with Rotherham and King. King would have been concerned about his career, but Rotherham celebrated his 60th birthday in 1423, and Morton, although he had a long career still ahead of him, was also no spring chicken so perhaps not as ambitious as one might expect. Perhaps Rotherham and Morton, at what they saw as the evening of their careers and protected from the rigour of the law by benefit of clergy, felt they had little to lose?


Well, that wasn't very quick, but you see how messy the evidence is?


Marie





Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 20:31:31
mariewalsh2003
Doug here:I think I've discover why the Guild was set up to pray for the souls of Edward IV, EW, Cecily and the DoY without any mention of the other members of the Royal Family. According to this link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_of_York#Birth_and_familyCecily was contracted to marry the heir to the Scottish throne in 1474. It is Wikipedia, but if the information is incorrect as to the date/s, we should be able to quickly sort that out.

Marie:Sorry everyone - my understanding of the Cecily in the Luton Guild stuff is that it was Cecily, Duchess of York, who was along with Elizabeth Woodville, one of the founder members.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 20:40:04
mariewalsh2003

Thanks for the Common Pleas case, Hilary!

Now you know how to work the AALT system, you can look up the full details if you want. I'll do that sometime, but I'm afraid I really do need to drop all this and get on with what I'm supposed to be doing.

Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 20:41:20
mariewalsh2003



Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-07 22:50:25
Nicholas Brown
Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 01:09:30
mariewalsh2003

Nico wrote to Doug


The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?

Marie butts in again:
It actually isn't at all unusual for people not to mention deceased parents in their wills. The reason is that mentions of family members weren't about courtesy. For instance, very often a person's son and heir is overlooked in a will because his share is automatic, and so only his younger siblings get a mention. The only purpose in mentioning a deceased parent would be to fund prayers for their soul, to get them through Purgatory, but if such prayers were already taken care of then there would be no need. People tended in their wills, or final instructions to feoffees, to set aside income for prayers for their own souls after death. They might include deceased parents and spouses in those prayers if they were not already being adequately prayed for, but not otherwise. So the likeliest explanation is the prosaic one, that Thomas Beamond's father had funded ample prayers for his own soul. Or, of course, it may be that Thomas hadn't liked him, or maybe didn't remember him because he'd died when he was very young. All I can say is wills that don't mention deceased patents are probably more numerous than those that do. If only everybody had named their parents in their wills, 15th century genealogy would be a lot easier than it is. Thomas didn't bother asking for prayers for the soul of his mother or sister after their deaths either; he only mentioned them because he was making them bequests.
I wouldn't read anything fishy into the inclusion of prayers for the soul of Thomas' late bishop and mentor, Oliver King. The annual obit that Thomas wanted set up was to be said in the cathedral, after all. Sentiment aside, he probably took the view that if prayers for the soul of Bishop King were included in the obit, for which the cathedral was to be paid 100 marks, then the cathedral staff were much more likely to go on observing it faithfully in time to come than would otherwise have been the case.
I've never heard before that Oliver King spied on Perkin Warbeck. He was a trusted advisor to Henry VII, spoke French and was one of the ignoble 'new men' denounced by Warbeck in his proclamation, but I've just checked Arthurson and Wroe and neither has anything to say about spying activities.
Oliver King does have a will. It was proved at the PCC, so is downloadable from TNA website. It is indexed as the will of "Oliver Bishop of Bath and Wells" without surname, and with date 23 October 1503, so if you put in Oliver for first name and 1503 for the date range it should come up.
I have to say that I personally don't think it's likely that there is any connection between the fact that Thomas's former employer at Wells, and possible mentor, was keenly loyal to Henry VII, and that Thomas's sister Margaret, in a different political world, had married a supporter of Richard III who, in the early years after Bosworth picked up the boy later known as Perkin Warbeck in the Low Countries and brought him along with him and his wife when they moved to Portugal. I certainly see no evidence that the Beamond brother and sister, who are not known to have had any further involvement with that young man (who found himself a job as page to a Portuguese nobleman), were involved in later years in an active plot to betray him to King Henry, if that's where this is heading. Poor old Brampton gets an unfairly harsh press because Cecil Roth felt he had to come down hard on him for supporting the evil Richard III, and blamed Sir Edward himself for exaggerated claims made about him by his family after he was dead. Sorry, once again the damp squib.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 04:06:18
Doug Stamate
Marie,

I think from now on I'm going to list the links as likely being Henry VI/Eton/Church  if only to cover all possibilities!

Doug

Marie wrote:

Marie, quickly again:

Hi. I'm afraid there may be some misunderstanding here. The list of alumni in the book you linked to, Hilary, does not be complete, and the low numbers were probably much lower than envisaged for the first few years anyway, which would reflect difficulty in recruiting to the new institution (I expect the pace was little better than a building site) The evidence of alumni for the early years is apparently very patchy, and according to Sterry there ARE no extant&n bsp;lists of scholars for most of these early years. Of the very early years, we only have them for 1444 and 1446, and I can't find the published version of these online.

The earliest college statutes, which were soon amended, were issued on 11 October 1440. This envisaged "provost, ten priests, four clerks, six choristers, twenty-five scholars, twenty-five beadsmen, and a school master" (Sterry, Eton College Register, p. xiv). At this time King's College, Cambridge was not yet up and running, and so the link between the two, whereby King's was to draw its intake entirely from boys who had studied at Eton for at least two years, was not yet envisaged.

King's College was founded in 1441, and in December 1443 the Eton statutes were revised by letters patent, tying the College to King's, Cambridge. The evidence of scholars is the following, and as you will see to a large degree it is based on the entrance records of Ki ng's (Sterry, p. xv):-

1) William Stok ke and Richard Cokkes were nominated as scholars in the original Eton foundation charter 1440 (this also nominated four choristers, including a Henry Cokkes, two of whom later turn up on the list of scholars);

2) 1441 one John Pagett was provisionally placed on the register at Winchester College contingent on his not obtaining a nomination at Eton.

2) 17 September 1443 extant record John Langport and Robert Drummer being admitted to King's from Eton, having transferred to Eton from Winchester College (possibly in order to qualify for King's);

3) December 1443 a record of 11 scholars who had completed their 15th year taking the oath of fidelity to King's College. Cokkes does not appear on this list.

4) July 1444, Richard Cove, John Chedworth and Thomas Rotherham were admitted to King's. Not one of these may have been a genuine Eton boy, but only notionally enrolled as one in order to qualify for King 9;s, as Cove had also transferred from Winchester, Chedworth was mature enough to become Provost of King's in 1446, and Rotherham was already 20 years old.

5) In 1445 we get the first specific statement that the number of scholars that Eton as to cater for had been raised to 70.

Historians of Eton are apparently divided over whether the Wykehamists (Winchester scholars) ever genuinely studied at Eton or not. Tradition insists that William Waynflete was appointed headmaster of Eton in 1441 and took these scholars with him, but Leach has shown that Waynflete was still at Winchester in October 1441, and only came to Eton as Provost on 21 December 1442.

Sterry concludes that some teaching did start at Eton at the beginning of 1441, and that is is why we see the first regular election to King's in 1443 (i.e. after the requisite two years' study at Eton).

The number of scholars that King's could accommodate was very low, only 11, so it would seem reasonable to suppose there were many Eton boys who never made it to King's and so whose names were do not have.

Apparently Henry's statutes envisaged some sons of the nobility and gentry attending Eton in addition to the scholars who, although described in the statutes as 'pauper et indigens' were to come from freeborn families possessing an income of no more than 5 marks a year.

The question of fees is a bit vague in Sterry. It is generally said the scholars had free education, but Sterry says at 16 scholars took an oath that they had not more income than that in return for paying fees of 10d a week. Given that 16 is the sort of age boys tended to go up to university back then, I wonder if these fees don't really relate to King's.

As Hilary says, in practice scholars hoping to go on to university could not be from genuinely poor families, and the little evidence we have suggests that the early scholars came from the middle classes, some from families fairly prominent in their county, others not.

As regards Doug's question - I still think the really big thing for these men would have been their links with the founder, Henry VI, who had taken a huge interest in his college and its students, and by 1483 was widely regarded as a saint. No names leaped out at me when I looked at the list of provosts, and these people, if still alive in 1443, would have been very old. Bishop Waynflete, although Provost of Eton 1442-7, remained a Wykehamist at heart, and later founded Magdalen College at Oxford to provide Winchester scholars with the same through-route to university that the Eton boys enjoyed. Also, he didn't oppose Richard, and indeed took him to visit Magdalen, having his college put on a great feast and even a scholastic disputation for Richard's benefit when he passed through Oxfor d on his progress in 1483.

Old Henrician sympathies would be an interesting angle to look at these plotters. It would certainly link Morton with Rotherham and King. King would have been concerned about his career, but Rotherham celebrated his 60th birthday in 1423, and Morton, although he had a long career still ahead of him, was also no spring chicken so perhaps not as ambitious as one might expect. Perhaps Rotherham and Morton, at what they saw as the evening of their careers and protected from the rigour of the law by benefit of clergy, felt they had little to lose?

Well, that wasn't very quick, but you see how messy the evidence is?



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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 04:10:05
Doug Stamate
In reply to my post of: I think I've discover why the Guild was set up to pray for the souls of Edward IV, EW, Cecily and the DoY without any mention of the other members of the Royal Family. According to this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_of_York#Birth_and_family Cecily was contracted to marry the heir to the Scottish throne in 1474. It is Wikipedia, but if the information is incorrect as to the date/s, we should be able to quickly sort that out. Marie responded with: Sorry everyone - my understanding of the Cecily in the Luton Guild stuff is that it was Cecily, Duchess of York, who was along with Elizabeth Woodville, one of the founder members. That sound everyone heard was me smacking my forehead! Doug

--
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: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 04:29:05
Doug Stamate


Marie wrote:

Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Doug here: Oh, Lor'! I'd completely forgotten about Catesby as the possible informer! A thought though; just how many witnesses were required to prove a charge of treason in 15th century England? Our U.S. Constitution requires two, but although much of our legal system has its basis in Common Law, I don't know whether or not that requirement for two witnesses to an act of treason was drawn from British law. If two witnesses were required, that would still allow for Morton to have been the second witness, wouldn't it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 04:48:32
Doug Stamate
Nico, I'm sort of lost here. We know Emma was married to a Spayne because she's listed in court records as both a widow and having the name Spayne. Is the connection between her and the Beaumont/Beaumonds because of her children's surname? (Thus presupposing a previous marriage to someone with that name?) Doug Nico wrote: The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 11:12:37
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, agree with all this.
A few brief quick things:
In both versions of the alumni Hatteclif is listed as one of the first scholars if not the first. One assumes that he and King would have worked closely in their roles for Edward?
I'm glad you've actually mentioned the Wykehamist connection which keeps cropping up.
Magdalen College Oxford is very interesting because it attracted quite a lot of the Lancastrian element and continued to do so into the next century - people like the Danvers and the Wadhams (who of course went on to found their own college). Some of these people gave their land to the College (and All Souls) and called their daughters Magdalen. I came to it through John Stokesley, Bishop of London under Henry VIII. He was almost certainly brought up by MB at Collyweston (he claims his place of birth in 1475 then owned by Clarence), appears on the scene after her death, was Master of Magdalen and one of the few if any people indicted by Cromwell that Henry refused to execute. A lot about him doesn't add up. And his mother came from St Albans where the family were bailiffs. I am not suggesting he was a prince by the way but he is 'interesting'.
I agree about Morton; I can't tease out his motive at this point.
I think there is a scenario where EW could have used Forster to get revenge on Hastings, who I still think could have been wound up/ set up whichever way you put it. Her brother and son were under threat of death because of Hastings's action in warning Richard and insisting Rivers had a reduced retinue for his journey. Intelligence would tell her that Hastings was probably worried/miffed over Buckingham. And Forster had his own smaller financial score to settle. What's more Forster was 'free' to act and she wasn't.
I do also think it's odd how Stillington seems to be remote from this. He was undoubtedly a Wykehamist - he'd followed Beckington (a founder of Eton) and he wanted to found his own school. Did the Yorkshire loyalty kick in or did he think it was all in vain because of the Pre-Contract?
Finally, so much of the story of what happened on that Friday is written post hoc (most in HT's time) and therefore with bias and has no doubt been 'glamourised' in the telling - one of the reasons I wrote the post Our only contemporary evidence is Stalworth and Forster's appeal to HT (is that right)?. And isn't there a Cely letter but it's date is unsure? And Croyland too is I recall written in 1486. Other 'outsiders' like Mancini are biased because of their reader or based on inaccurate gossip. JAH doesn't even mention Forster and has Hastings being killed by Richard's guards when he tries to kill him. It all needs taking to bits - if we can - and starting again.
BTW I grow strawberries and I've never had any ripe on 13th June. Now I know I'm a bit further north but did Morton have a polytunnel or was the world so much wamer then?:) :) H
On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:29:34 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, the intake at Eton was very small, some years only four or five, others about thirteen so I think there's little doubt they would have known one another. They did indeed feed into King's College and Roger Rotherham was Provost there in the 1470s until his death in 1477. Interestingly, I can't find Roger on the Eton list but he just might have been older than Thomas?



Marie, quickly again:

Hi. I'm afraid there may be some misunderstanding here. The list of alumni in the book you linked to, Hilary, does not be complete, and the low numbers were probably much lower than envisaged for the first few years anyway, which would reflect difficulty in recruiting to the new institution (I expect the pace was little better than a building site) The evidence of alumni for the early years is apparently very patchy, and according to Sterry there ARE no extant lists of scholars for most of these early years. Of the very early years, we only have them for 1444 and 1446, and I can't find the published version of these online.

The earliest college statutes, which were soon amended, were issued on 11 October 1440. This envisaged "provost, ten priests, four clerks, six choristers, twenty-five scholars, twenty-five beadsmen, and a school master" (Sterry, Eton College Register, p. xiv). At this time King's College, Cambridge was not yet up and running, and so the link between the two, whereby King's was to draw its intake entirely from boys who had studied at Eton for at least two years, was not yet envisaged.

King's College was founded in 1441, and in December 1443 the Eton statutes were revised by letters patent, tying the College to King's, Cambridge. The evidence of scholars is the following, and as you will see to a large degree it is based on the entrance records of King's (Sterry, p. xv):-

1) William Stokke and Richard Cokkes were nominated as scholars in the original Eton foundation charter 1440 (this also nominated four choristers, including a Henry Cokkes, two of whom later turn up on the list of scholars);

2) 1441 one John Pagett was provisionally placed on the register at Winchester College contingent on his not obtaining a nomination at Eton.

2) 17 September 1443 extant record John Langport and Robert Drummer being admitted to King's from Eton, having transferred to Eton from Winchester College (possibly in order to qualify for King's);

3) December 1443 a record of 11 scholars who had completed their 15th year taking the oath of fidelity to King's College. Cokkes does not appear on this list.

4) July 1444, Richard Cove, John Chedworth and Thomas Rotherham were admitted to King's. Not one of these may have been a genuine Eton boy, but only notionally enrolled as one in order to qualify for King's, as Cove had also transferred from Winchester, Chedworth was mature enough to become Provost of King's in 1446, and Rotherham was already 20 years old.

5) In 1445 we get the first specific statement that the number of scholars that Eton as to cater for had been raised to 70.


Historians of Eton are apparently divided over whether the Wykehamists (Winchester scholars) ever genuinely studied at Eton or not. Tradition insists that William Waynflete was appointed headmaster of Eton in 1441 and took these scholars with him, but Leach has shown that Waynflete was still at Winchester in October 1441, and only came to Eton as Provost on 21 December 1442.

Sterry concludes that some teaching did start at Eton at the beginning of 1441, and that is is why we see the first regular election to King's in 1443 (i.e. after the requisite two years' study at Eton).


The number of scholars that King's could accommodate was very low, only 11, so it would seem reasonable to suppose there were many Eton boys who never made it to King's and so whose names were do not have.


Apparently Henry's statutes envisaged some sons of the nobility and gentry attending Eton in addition to the scholars who, although described in the statutes as 'pauper et indigens' were to come from freeborn families possessing an income of no more than 5 marks a year.

The question of fees is a bit vague in Sterry. It is generally said the scholars had free education, but Sterry says at 16 scholars took an oath that they had not more income than that in return for paying fees of 10d a week. Given that 16 is the sort of age boys tended to go up to university back then, I wonder if these fees don't really relate to King's.

As Hilary says, in practice scholars hoping to go on to university could not be from genuinely poor families, and the little evidence we have suggests that the early scholars came from the middle classes, some from families fairly prominent in their county, others not.


As regards Doug's question - I still think the really big thing for these men would have been their links with the founder, Henry VI, who had taken a huge interest in his college and its students, and by 1483 was widely regarded as a saint. No names leaped out at me when I looked at the list of provosts, and these people, if still alive in 1443, would have been very old. Bishop Waynflete, although Provost of Eton 1442-7, remained a Wykehamist at heart, and later founded Magdalen College at Oxford to provide Winchester scholars with the same through-route to university that the Eton boys enjoyed. Also, he didn't oppose Richard, and indeed took him to visit Magdalen, having his college put on a great feast and even a scholastic disputation for Richard's benefit when he passed through Oxford on his progress in 1483.


Old Henrician sympathies would be an interesting angle to look at these plotters. It would certainly link Morton with Rotherham and King. King would have been concerned about his career, but Rotherham celebrated his 60th birthday in 1423, and Morton, although he had a long career still ahead of him, was also no spring chicken so perhaps not as ambitious as one might expect. Perhaps Rotherham and Morton, at what they saw as the evening of their careers and protected from the rigour of the law by benefit of clergy, felt they had little to lose?


Well, that wasn't very quick, but you see how messy the evidence is?


Marie





Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 11:13:14
Hilary Jones
Yes it was Marie, I've got the quote. H
On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:31:39 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Doug here:I think I've discover why the Guild was set up to pray for the souls of Edward IV, EW, Cecily and the DoY without any mention of the other members of the Royal Family. According to this link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecily_of_York#Birth_and_familyCecily was contracted to marry the heir to the Scottish throne in 1474. It is Wikipedia, but if the information is incorrect as to the date/s, we should be able to quickly sort that out.

Marie:Sorry everyone - my understanding of the Cecily in the Luton Guild stuff is that it was Cecily, Duchess of York, who was along with Elizabeth Woodville, one of the founder members.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 11:14:04
Hilary Jones
Yes I've found it! Just need to work on my 'clerical writing' skills. H
On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:40:08 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks for the Common Pleas case, Hilary!

Now you know how to work the AALT system, you can look up the full details if you want. I'll do that sometime, but I'm afraid I really do need to drop all this and get on with what I'm supposed to be doing.

Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 11:17:44
Hilary Jones
Marie, a quick one.
There is a letter from HT himself to King, thanking him for keeping a lookout for PW landing but saying he's located.
Also 'Richard IV' (PW) in a letter describes King as one of HT's very few friends and confidants. He is not complimentary about him. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 01:09:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote to Doug


The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?

Marie butts in again:
It actually isn't at all unusual for people not to mention deceased parents in their wills. The reason is that mentions of family members weren't about courtesy. For instance, very often a person's son and heir is overlooked in a will because his share is automatic, and so only his younger siblings get a mention. The only purpose in mentioning a deceased parent would be to fund prayers for their soul, to get them through Purgatory, but if such prayers were already taken care of then there would be no need. People tended in their wills, or final instructions to feoffees, to set aside income for prayers for their own souls after death. They might include deceased parents and spouses in those prayers if they were not already being adequately prayed for, but not otherwise. So the likeliest explanation is the prosaic one, that Thomas Beamond's father had funded ample prayers for his own soul. Or, of course, it may be that Thomas hadn't liked him, or maybe didn't remember him because he'd died when he was very young. All I can say is wills that don't mention deceased patents are probably more numerous than those that do. If only everybody had named their parents in their wills, 15th century genealogy would be a lot easier than it is. Thomas didn't bother asking for prayers for the soul of his mother or sister after their deaths either; he only mentioned them because he was making them bequests.
I wouldn't read anything fishy into the inclusion of prayers for the soul of Thomas' late bishop and mentor, Oliver King. The annual obit that Thomas wanted set up was to be said in the cathedral, after all. Sentiment aside, he probably took the view that if prayers for the soul of Bishop King were included in the obit, for which the cathedral was to be paid 100 marks, then the cathedral staff were much more likely to go on observing it faithfully in time to come than would otherwise have been the case.
I've never heard before that Oliver King spied on Perkin Warbeck. He was a trusted advisor to Henry VII, spoke French and was one of the ignoble 'new men' denounced by Warbeck in his proclamation, but I've just checked Arthurson and Wroe and neither has anything to say about spying activities.
Oliver King does have a will. It was proved at the PCC, so is downloadable from TNA website. It is indexed as the will of "Oliver Bishop of Bath and Wells" without surname, and with date 23 October 1503, so if you put in Oliver for first name and 1503 for the date range it should come up.
I have to say that I personally don't think it's likely that there is any connection between the fact that Thomas's former employer at Wells, and possible mentor, was keenly loyal to Henry VII, and that Thomas's sister Margaret, in a different political world, had married a supporter of Richard III who, in the early years after Bosworth picked up the boy later known as Perkin Warbeck in the Low Countries and brought him along with him and his wife when they moved to Portugal. I certainly see no evidence that the Beamond brother and sister, who are not known to have had any further involvement with that young man (who found himself a job as page to a Portuguese nobleman), were involved in later years in an active plot to betray him to King Henry, if that's where this is heading. Poor old Brampton gets an unfairly harsh press because Cecil Roth felt he had to come down hard on him for supporting the evil Richard III, and blamed Sir Edward himself for exaggerated claims made about him by his family after he was dead. Sorry, once again the damp squib.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 12:53:48
mariewalsh2003

Marie:

There was no requirement for two witnesses so far as I know, but corroborating evidence would surely have to be found in order make a case stand up in court. In some treason cases for which we have have surviving indictments, the plots are stated to have been overheard by a named individual who was not charged with any offence - in the Bolingbroke trial, for instance, this was Sir John Solers, and in the Burdet/ Stacey/ Blake trial it was Alexander Russheton. These are assumed to have been the informants, and it is just one name in each case.

But in the Bolingbroke case a lot of magical instruments, astrological workings, etc, were seized and produced as hard evidence. In the Burdet case it's not so clear but as dates of meetings are given I imagine some sort of notebook must have been seized at the very least. There is an astrologer's notebook in TNA with astrological calculations which is believed to have been amongst the government documents because it had been seized for a treason case, but it is quite faded and it's all composed of degrees and the sort of astrological symbols and shorthand in use in the day so I can't read it.


In the case of the Hastings plot, wasn't the idea that the plotters had stored weapons close by ready for use later in the day, and that these were discovered (presumably by virtue of a tip-off from Catesby) and formed concrete evidence of a plot? Carrying weapons in the King's house was illegal per se.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 13:53:35
mariewalsh2003
Re the strawberries - in the 15th century 13th June fell at the same point in the annual solar cycle as 22nd June today.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 13:57:01
Hilary Jones
Well mine still don't make it till at least 29th - but then I am 80 miles further north. Perhaps it was a warm year; or they had the Bishop's blessing :) :) H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 13:53:41 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Re the strawberries - in the 15th century 13th June fell at the same point in the annual solar cycle as 22nd June today.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 13:58:52
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


I do know about that letter from King Henry, but that surely doesn't count as spying. The county sheriffs and prominent men in localities got those sort of instructions. The point about spying is that it's a covert operation. King wasn't being asked to do any covert sneaky stuff, and the rebel landing would not be a secret anyway - it's just that the King wanted word of it as soon as possible.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 14:00:50
mariewalsh2003

P.S. The letter you speak of from PW - was that not the proclamation I referred to in the post you were replying to? It wasn't a short list of men, and it was a complaint about promotion of non-noble folk, not who Henry's close personal friends were.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 14:10:05
mariewalsh2003

The latitude makes a big difference, as I can testify, having moved north from the Home Counties and still visiting there frequently. Also the situation of the garden.


So that's the first thing. The second is that the varieties of strawberries we cultivate today are nothing like the ones Morton would have been growing, which would have been tiny, what we now call wild or alpine strawberries. (Cultivated varieties are derived from the super big strawberries Elizabethan explorers found in the Americas and raved about, though they weren't developed for use in European gardens until the 18th century.)

The point about wild strawberries is, being native plants, they don't need a lot of sun and fruit whenever the weather is warm enough.

Church

2019-09-08 15:14:11
bale.paul-trevor@...
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.  I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!

Re: Church

2019-09-08 15:39:05
A J Hibbard
It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.] 

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:
 

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.  I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!

Re: Church

2019-09-08 16:10:04
Hilary Jones
And that goes for music too! All pre-Tudor music over here was destroyed/plagiarised by that magnificent musician Henry VIII. Unfortunately, they didn't destroy what had been preserved by the Burgundians, which sounds remarkably like some of Henry's compositions..
Paul, you should know by now that nothing, absolutely nothing, except perhaps the murder of Becket or Agincourt, happened before the Tudors!
But, what is worth watching if you get it over there is Neil Oliver's History of Scotland - the nearest you get to a Scottish Michael Wood. And it actually taught me something; like how Edward betrayed the Lords of the Isles. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 15:39:10 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!

Re: Church

2019-09-08 16:13:45
Pamela Bain
From a very unlearned point of view, it seems that the Tudors must have been very concerned about their shaky dynasty, since they took such great paints to lie, cheat, steal, and sully any and all things Plantagenet. And it must have been handed down through the ages, as there are still so many people who attribute the good things to the beginning of Tudor time.
On Sep 8, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And that goes for music too! All pre-Tudor music over here was destroyed/plagiarised by that magnificent musician Henry VIII. Unfortunately, they didn't destroy what had been preserved by the Burgundians, which sounds remarkably like some of Henry's compositions..
Paul, you should know by now that nothing, absolutely nothing, except perhaps the murder of Becket or Agincourt, happened before the Tudors!
But, what is worth watching if you get it over there is Neil Oliver's History of Scotland - the nearest you get to a Scottish Michael Wood. And it actually taught me something; like how Edward betrayed the Lords of the Isles. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 15:39:10 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!

Re: Church

2019-09-08 18:47:03
Bale PAUL
Yes I saw the Scotland programmes. Neil did a terrific programme last year about Bannockburn which was the sort of show Michael Wood would have done had anybody managed to get him interested in Bosworth back in the 1980s!
Bale Paul Trevrbale.paul-trevor@...


On 8 Sep 2019, at 16:49, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And that goes for music too! All pre-Tudor music over here was destroyed/plagiarised by that magnificent musician Henry VIII. Unfortunately, they didn't destroy what had been preserved by the Burgundians, which sounds remarkably like some of Henry's compositions..
Paul, you should know by now that nothing, absolutely nothing, except perhaps the murder of Becket or Agincourt, happened before the Tudors!
But, what is worth watching if you get it over there is Neil Oliver's History of Scotland - the nearest you get to a Scottish Michael Wood. And it actually taught me something; like how Edward betrayed the Lords of the Isles. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 15:39:10 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-08 19:27:59
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Would separating what happened during May/June 1483 into two threads, one concerning the period prior to the revelation of the Pre-Contract and a second for the period after the Pre-Contract was revealed, help any in regards to Morton's motive/s? Prior to the revelations about the Pre-Contract, the focus would have been on how to reduce the power/authority of the Protector, and consequently increasing the power of the Council  and its' members. If the authority of the Protector was reduced, while the position remained, then Richard would have had to rely even more on the Council, wouldn't he? A decrease in the the Protector's powers might also mean the return of various members of the Woodville faction as well. While young Edward was king, Rotherham, King, Morton and probably some others, would still remain important Council members, if only because of the support they could offer to, or withhold from, the Protector in his dealings with the Council. And that would be true whether or not the Protector's wings were clipped by the Council assuming more power over the Protector. During this period, the motive could have simply been regaining lost power, which is why we see people such as Rotherham and King associating with Morton, but not with Hastings. Then there's the Woodville contingent to keep in mind. EW was in sanctuary but, as demonstrated by the fears about her daughters being smuggled out, it's almost a certainty she was able to send and receive messages. I don't know if Forster was in Hertfordshire in May of 1483, but it seems likely and he would be in a position to send/receive messages from EW and assist in coordinating the maneuvers aimed at changing the pro-Richard as Protector majority into one where the Council dominated. OTOH, after the Pre-Contract had been brought before the Council the focus would have been on keeping Edward V on the throne. Which is how Hastings was brought in because, as best I can tell, the one thing that might unite such a disparate group would be Edward V being replaced on the throne by Richard. Going by what happened to these people after Hastings' execution, it would seem to me that Rotherham and King were still working on changing the minds of various Council members by the usual means of argument (possibly with bribery and blackmail as fall-backs). Determining just who it was who decided the best option was killing Richard and Buckingham, I can't say. As best I can determine, however, EW was apparently willing to see Richard and Buckingham dead in late April, so any plot to remove those two at a later date might simply have been an updating of the original intention. Needless to say, if my suspicions are anywhere near what did happen, then EW moves into the position of prime mover, with Morton agreeing to go along. If say, the position of Lord Chancellor under Edward V had been offered as his reward, I can easily imagine Morton getting involved. Hastings would have been brought in because his position as Master of the Mint meant he could get a group of men into the Tower without arousing suspicion> Hastings' motive/s would have been the certain loss of Captaincy, likely loss of the Mastership of the Mint and possibly further financial losses in properties/rents. The attack, I presume, would have occurred after Richard and Buckingham left the Council chamber, but before they'd left the Tower grounds; most likely before they'd even gotten to their horses. FWIW, I have great difficulties with the idea that somehow Hastings' involvement was an attempt at revenge for any reason because, or so it seems to me, if the idea to involve Hastings was some sort of revenge then the only way for the revenge plot to succeed was for Richard to discover it and execute Hastings. Which would leave Richard alive and well  and sitting on the throne. If someone wanted to get rid of Hastings that badly, why not have him attacked as he made his way through one of medieval London's narrower streets? Doug Who apologizes for the length (again!), but once I get started... Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, agree with all this. A few brief quick things: In both versions of the alumni Hatteclif is listed as one of the first scholars if not the first. One assumes that he and King would have worked closely in their roles for Edward? I'm glad you've actually mentioned the Wykehamist connection which keeps cropping up. Magdalen College Oxford is very interesting because it attracted quite a lot of the Lancastrian element and continued to do so into the next century - people like the Danvers and the Wadhams (who of course went on to found their own college). Some of these people gave their land to th e College (and All Souls) and called their daughters Magdalen. I came to it through John Stokesley, Bishop of London under Henry VIII. He was almost certainly brought up by MB at Collyweston (he claims his place of birth in 1475 then owned by Clarence), appears on the scene after her death, was Master of Magdalen and one of the few if any people indicted by Cromwell that Henry refused to execute. A lot about him doesn't add up. And his mother came from St Albans where the family were bailiffs. I am not suggesting he was a prince by the way but he is 'interesting'. I agree about Morton; I can't tease out his motive at this point. I think there is a scenario where EW could have used Forster to get revenge on Hastings, who I still think could have been wound up/set whichever way you put it. Her brother and her son were under threat of death because of Hastings' action in warning Richard and insisting Rivers had a reduced reinue for his journey. Intelligence would tell her that Hastings was probably worried/miffed over Buckingham. And Forster had his own smaller financial score to settle. What's more Forster was free' to act and she wasn't. I do also think it's odd how Stillington seems to be remote from this. He was undoubtedly a Wykehamist - he'd followed Beckington (a founder of Eton) and he wanted to found his own school. Did the Yorkshire loyalty kick in or did he think it was all in vain because of the Pre-Contract? Finally, so much of the story of what happened on that Friday is written post hoc (most in HT's time) and therefore with bias and has no doubt been 'glamourised' in the telling - one of the reasons I wrote the post Our only contemporar y evidence is Stalworth and Forster's appeal to HT (is that right)?. And isn't there a Cely letter but it's date is unsure? And Croyland too is I recall written in 1486. Other 'outsiders' like Mancini are biased because of their reader or based on inaccurate gossip. JAH doesn't even mention Forster and has Hastings being killed by Richard's guards when he tries to kill him. It all needs taking to bits - if we can - and starting again. BTW I grow strawberries and I've never had any ripe on 13th June. Now I know I'm a bit further north but did Morton have a polytunnel or was the world so much wamer then?:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-09-09 04:31:42
Doug Stamate
Paul, Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular? Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes... Doug Paul wrote: Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire. Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture. Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine! If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts. 1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer! Annoyed? You bet I am.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Church

2019-09-09 04:46:56
Doug Stamate
Pamela, To be fair, I don't know how the fetishization of the Tudors is due to the members of the dynasty themselves or to subsequent historians and politicians? I think one reason Henry VII emphasized his Tudor-ness was more to differentiate himself and his heirs from the York/Lancaster feuding than fears for his dynasty's reputation. There's also the fact that as the Tudors get underway as monarchs, more and more documentary history becomes available and thus making it easier for historians to do research (and publish). AFAIK, at least the Tudors didn't try to claim bringing the printing press to England as one of their accomplishments. Well, they couldn't, could they; what with the date of the book's printing right there on the frontispiece? Doug Pamela wrote: From a very unlearned point of view, it seems that the Tudors must have been very concerned about their shaky dynasty, since they took such great paints to lie, cheat, steal, and sully any and all things Plantagenet. And it must have been handed down through the ages, as there are still so many people who attribute the good things to the beginning of Tudor time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 05:09:44
Doug Stamate
Marie, So, if it was Catesby who was the source of the information about the plot, it's almost a certain there'd have been some sort of physical evidence supporting his allegations. However, if the information Catesby provided was solely what he'd heard (as opposed to, say, letters), then in order to bring a charge that would hold up, supporting evidence would be needed. I hadn't heard anything about weapons being stock-piled nearby, but if that was the case, then there'd be the needed supporting evidence. FWIW, here in northern Indiana I find little wild strawberries in my yard when I mow during May; little, wizened, tasteless strawberries, I might add. Doug Who still thinks Morton was involved, somehow, someway, in providing the needed proofs...

Marie wrote:

There was no requirement for two witnesses so far as I know, but corroborating evidence would surely have to be found in order make a case stand up in court. In some treason cases for which we have have surviving indictments, the plots are stated to have been overheard by a named individual who was not charged with any offence - in the Bolingbroke trial, for instance, this was Sir John Solers, and in the Burdet/ Stacey/ Blake trial it was Alexander Russheton. These are assumed to have been the informants, and it is just one name in each case.

But in the Bolingbroke case a lot of magical instruments, astrological workings, etc, were seized and produced as hard evidence. In the Burdet case it's not so clear but as dates of meetings are given I imagine some sort of notebook must have been seized at the very least. There is an astrologer's notebook in TNA with astrological calculations which is believed to have been amongst the government documents because it had been seized for a treason case, but it is quite faded and it's all composed of degrees and the sort of astrological symbols and shorthand in use in the day so I can't read it.

In the case of the Hastings plot, wasn't the idea that the plotters had stored weapons close by ready for use later in the day, and that these were discovered (presumably by virtue of a tip-off from Catesby) and formed concrete evidence of a plot? Carrying weapons in the King's house was illegal per se.


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 05:43:32
Doug Stamate
Marie, I went surfing through Wikipedia and found this link to the Bishop of Ely's London palace in Camden/Holborn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_Place Seemingly, every June there was, and still is, a Strawberry Fayre held in the grounds of St. Etheldreda's Church which served as the chapel for the Bishop of Ely' London palace. The article even included a quote from Richard III: My Lord of Ely, when I was last in Holborn, I saw good strawberries in your garden there. I do beseech you, do send for some of them. Now, the reason I quoted the above is because there's a small picture of Ely Place accompanying the article and the only way Richard could have seen the strawberries in the Bishop's garden was by entering it because where the view of the gardens isn't blocked by buildings, there's a wall (from the looks of it, five or six feet tall). I know it's Shakespeare and not history, but it certainly seems to me that if Richard knew about the state of Morton's strawberries, he'd have to have visited Ely Palace; if not recently then when? Or, most likely, is it just one of those things and doesn't even matter? Doug Marie wrote: Re the strawberries - in the 15th century 13th June fell at the same point in the annual solar cycle as 22nd June today.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-09-09 08:48:40
Stephen
Rather like Adam Hart-Davis and his What the Tudors did for us, including printing!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 09 September 2019 04:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Church

 
 
 
 
Paul,
Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular?
Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes...
Doug
 
Paul wrote:
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.
Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.
I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.
Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!
If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.
1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!
Annoyed? You bet I am.
 
 

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




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:02:20
Hilary Jones
I know he wasn't then but he was one of HT's great friends from his accession. Now to be that you had to qualify, like Daubeny or Uncle Jasper. He only had half a dozen all his life. And look how he supported King over the refurbishment of the Bishop's Palace. Clearly PW and his supporters knew of him. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 13:58:56 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


I do know about that letter from King Henry, but that surely doesn't count as spying. The county sheriffs and prominent men in localities got those sort of instructions. The point about spying is that it's a covert operation. King wasn't being asked to do any covert sneaky stuff, and the rebel landing would not be a secret anyway - it's just that the King wanted word of it as soon as possible.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:04:21
Hilary Jones
I'll come back to you. H


On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 14:03:24 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

P.S. The letter you speak of from PW - was that not the proclamation I referred to in the post you were replying to? It wasn't a short list of men, and it was a complaint about promotion of non-noble folk, not who Henry's close personal friends were.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:20:01
Hilary Jones
Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.
EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.
After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.
If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H


On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 19:28:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Would separating what happened during May/June 1483 into two threads, one concerning the period prior to the revelation of the Pre-Contract and a second for the period after the Pre-Contract was revealed, help any in regards to Morton's motive/s? Prior to the revelations about the Pre-Contract, the focus would have been on how to reduce the power/authority of the Protector, and consequently increasing the power of the Council  and its' members. If the authority of the Protector was reduced, while the position remained, then Richard would have had to rely even more on the Council, wouldn't he? A decrease in the the Protector's powers might also mean the return of various members of the Woodville faction as well. While young Edward was king, Rotherham, King, Morton and probably some others, would still remain important Council members, if only because of the support they could offer to, or withhold from, the Protector in his dealings with the Council. And that would be true whether or not the Protector's wings were clipped by the Council assuming more power over the Protector. During this period, the motive could have simply been regaining lost power, which is why we see people such as Rotherham and King associating with Morton, but not with Hastings. Then there's the Woodville contingent to keep in mind. EW was in sanctuary but, as demonstrated by the fears about her daughters being smuggled out, it's almost a certainty she was able to send and receive messages. I don't know if Forster was in Hertfordshire in May of 1483, but it seems likely and he would be in a position to send/receive messages from EW and assist in coordinating the maneuvers aimed at changing the pro-Richard as Protector majority into one where the Council dominated. OTOH, after the Pre-Contract had been brought before the Council the focus would have been on keeping Edward V on the throne. Which is how Hastings was brought in because, as best I can tell, the one thing that might unite such a disparate group would be Edward V being replaced on the throne by Richard. Going by what happened to these people after Hastings' execution, it would seem to me that Rotherham and King were still working on changing the minds of various Council members by the usual means of argument (possibly with bribery and blackmail as fall-backs).. Determining just who it was who decided the best option was killing Richard and Buckingham, I can't say. As best I can determine, however, EW was apparently willing to see Richard and Buckingham dead in late April, so any plot to remove those two at a later date might simply have been an updating of the original intention. Needless to say, if my suspicions are anywhere near what did happen, then EW moves into the position of prime mover, with Morton agreeing to go along. If say, the position of Lord Chancellor under Edward V had been offered as his reward, I can easily imagine Morton getting involved. Hastings would have been brought in because his position as Master of the Mint meant he could get a group of men into the Tower without arousing suspicion> Hastings' motive/s would have been the certain loss of Captaincy, likely loss of the Mastership of the Mint and possibly further financial losses in properties/rents. The attack, I presume, would have occurred after Richard and Buckingham left the Council chamber, but before they'd left the Tower grounds; most likely before they'd even gotten to their horses. FWIW, I have great difficulties with the idea that somehow Hastings' involvement was an attempt at revenge for any reason because, or so it seems to me, if the idea to involve Hastings was some sort of revenge then the only way for the revenge plot to succeed was for Richard to discover it and execute Hastings. Which would leave Richard alive and well  and sitting on the throne. If someone wanted to get rid of Hastings that badly, why not have him attacked as he made his way through one of medieval London's narrower streets? Doug Who apologizes for the length (again!), but once I get started... Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, agree with all this. A few brief quick things: In both versions of the alumni Hatteclif is listed as one of the first scholars if not the first. One assumes that he and King would have worked closely in their roles for Edward? I'm glad you've actually mentioned the Wykehamist connection which keeps cropping up. Magdalen College Oxford is very interesting because it attracted quite a lot of the Lancastrian element and continued to do so into the next century - people like the Danvers and the Wadhams (who of course went on to found their own college). Some of these people gave their land to th e College (and All Souls) and called their daughters Magdalen. I came to it through John Stokesley, Bishop of London under Henry VIII. He was almost certainly brought up by MB at Collyweston (he claims his place of birth in 1475 then owned by Clarence), appears on the scene after her death, was Master of Magdalen and one of the few if any people indicted by Cromwell that Henry refused to execute. A lot about him doesn't add up. And his mother came from St Albans where the family were bailiffs. I am not suggesting he was a prince by the way but he is 'interesting'. I agree about Morton; I can't tease out his motive at this point. I think there is a scenario where EW could have used Forster to get revenge on Hastings, who I still think could have been wound up/set whichever way you put it. Her brother and her son were under threat of death because of Hastings' action in warning Richard and insisting Rivers had a reduced reinue for his journey. Intelligence would tell her that Hastings was probably worried/miffed over Buckingham. And Forster had his own smaller financial score to settle. What's more Forster was free' to act and she wasn't. I do also think it's odd how Stillington seems to be remote from this. He was undoubtedly a Wykehamist - he'd followed Beckington (a founder of Eton) and he wanted to found his own school. Did the Yorkshire loyalty kick in or did he think it was all in vain because of the Pre-Contract? Finally, so much of the story of what happened on that Friday is written post hoc (most in HT's time) and therefore with bias and has no doubt been 'glamourised' in the telling - one of the reasons I wrote the post Our only contemporar y evidence is Stalworth and Forster's appeal to HT (is that right)?. And isn't there a Cely letter but it's date is unsure? And Croyland too is I recall written in 1486. Other 'outsiders' like Mancini are biased because of their reader or based on inaccurate gossip. JAH doesn't even mention Forster and has Hastings being killed by Richard's guards when he tries to kill him. It all needs taking to bits - if we can - and starting again. BTW I grow strawberries and I've never had any ripe on 13th June. Now I know I'm a bit further north but did Morton have a polytunnel or was the world so much wamer then?:) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Church

2019-09-09 10:27:43
Hilary Jones
Talking of Pamela's 'shaky dynasty', with which I agree, the glorious conclusion of Neil Oliver's Scotland is that for centuries English kings had battered Scotland but then the last Tudor let them ride gently in and take over both countries without a blow being struck. Perhaps that was justice against the Tudors in the end. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 04:46:59 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela, To be fair, I don't know how the fetishization of the Tudors is due to the members of the dynasty themselves or to subsequent historians and politicians? I think one reason Henry VII emphasized his Tudor-ness was more to differentiate himself and his heirs from the York/Lancaster feuding than fears for his dynasty's reputation. There's also the fact that as the Tudors get underway as monarchs, more and more documentary history becomes available and thus making it easier for historians to do research (and publish). AFAIK, at least the Tudors didn't try to claim bringing the printing press to England as one of their accomplishments. Well, they couldn't, could they; what with the date of the book's printing right there on the frontispiece? Doug Pamela wrote: From a very unlearned point of view, it seems that the Tudors must have been very concerned about their shaky dynasty, since they took such great paints to lie, cheat, steal, and sully any and all things Plantagenet. And it must have been handed down through the ages, as there are still so many people who attribute the good things to the beginning of Tudor time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:34:28
Hilary Jones
Me butting in, Doug. Actually not a bad point. You see even if the wall was new, how often was Richard in London to go wondering round Holborn? If he just came to Westminster,then that was in those days almost another town and you'd usually go by barge into London to avoid possible robbers. True his mother was sometimes at Baynards but that's again on the river.
It's like I say it all needs taking to bits to separate fact (what little there is) from fiction. H - I know it's Shakespeare but ....Shakespeare and More did know London.

On Monday, 9 September 2019, 05:43:40 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie, I went surfing through Wikipedia and found this link to the Bishop of Ely's London palace in Camden/Holborn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_Place Seemingly, every June there was, and still is, a Strawberry Fayre held in the grounds of St. Etheldreda's Church which served as the chapel for the Bishop of Ely' London palace. The article even included a quote from Richard III: My Lord of Ely, when I was last in Holborn, I saw good strawberries in your garden there. I do beseech you, do send for some of them. Now, the reason I quoted the above is because there's a small picture of Ely Place accompanying the article and the only way Richard could have seen the strawberries in the Bishop's garden was by entering it because where the view of the gardens isn't blocked by buildings, there's a wall (from the looks of it, five or six feet tall). I know it's Shakespeare and not history, but it certainly seems to me that if Richard knew about the state of Morton's strawberries, he'd have to have visited Ely Palace; if not recently then when? Or, most likely, is it just one of those things and doesn't even matter? Doug Marie wrote: Re the strawberries - in the 15th century 13th June fell at the same point in the annual solar cycle as 22nd June today.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:42:56
Hilary Jones
Ah - wild strawberries. Now I see. Yes as you know I lived in Australia and the first thing you ask there is which way the garden is facing - to heat the pool of course:) So mine here is North-facing - er with no pool. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 14:10:10 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

The latitude makes a big difference, as I can testify, having moved north from the Home Counties and still visiting there frequently. Also the situation of the garden.


So that's the first thing. The second is that the varieties of strawberries we cultivate today are nothing like the ones Morton would have been growing, which would have been tiny, what we now call wild or alpine strawberries. (Cultivated varieties are derived from the super big strawberries Elizabethan explorers found in the Americas and raved about, though they weren't developed for use in European gardens until the 18th century.)

The point about wild strawberries is, being native plants, they don't need a lot of sun and fruit whenever the weather is warm enough.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 10:51:02
Hilary Jones
Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.
In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.
There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.
Again a thought. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?
And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche. H


On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 22:50:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Re: Church

2019-09-09 12:20:07
Pamela Bain
Great points!
On Sep 8, 2019, at 10:47 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Pamela, To be fair, I don't know how the fetishization of the Tudors is due to the members of the dynasty themselves or to subsequent historians and politicians? I think one reason Henry VII emphasized his Tudor-ness was more to differentiate himself and his heirs from the York/Lancaster feuding than fears for his dynasty's reputation. There's also the fact that as the Tudors get underway as monarchs, more and more documentary history becomes available and thus making it easier for historians to do research (and publish). AFAIK, at least the Tudors didn't try to claim bringing the printing press to England as one of their accomplishments. Well, they couldn't, could they; what with the date of the book's printing right there on the frontispiece? Doug Pamela wrote: From a very unlearned point of view, it seems that the Tudors must have been very concerned about their shaky dynasty, since they took such great paints to lie, cheat, steal, and sully any and all things Plantagenet. And it must have been handed down through the ages, as there are still so many people who attribute the good things to the beginning of Tudor time.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:04:58
mariewalsh2003
Marie,So, if it was Catesby who was the source of the information about the plot, it's almost a certain there'd have been some sort of physical evidence supporting his allegations. However, if the information Catesby provided was solely what he'd heard (as opposed to, say, letters), then in order to bring a charge that would hold up, supporting evidence would be needed. I hadn't heard anything about weapons being stock-piled nearby, but if that was the case, then there'd be the needed supporting evidence.FWIW, here in northern Indiana I find little wild strawberries in my yard when I mow during May; little, wizened, tasteless strawberries, I might add. DougWho still thinks Morton was involved, somehow, someway, in providing the needed proofs...



Marie answers:

There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.

Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.

I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.

Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the names given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae - "being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham". Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.

I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up; it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.

Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais and his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important to the plotters.

P. S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure that Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Buckingham had been properly condemned and executed. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers too as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.

Re: Church

2019-09-09 13:20:20
Hilary Jones
The photography and graphics were gorgeous too. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 18:47:11 BST, Bale PAUL bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I saw the Scotland programmes. Neil did a terrific programme last year about Bannockburn which was the sort of show Michael Wood would have done had anybody managed to get him interested in Bosworth back in the 1980s!

Bale Paul Trevrbale.paul-trevor@...


On 8 Sep 2019, at 16:49, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And that goes for music too! All pre-Tudor music over here was destroyed/plagiarised by that magnificent musician Henry VIII. Unfortunately, they didn't destroy what had been preserved by the Burgundians, which sounds remarkably like some of Henry's compositions..
Paul, you should know by now that nothing, absolutely nothing, except perhaps the murder of Becket or Agincourt, happened before the Tudors!
But, what is worth watching if you get it over there is Neil Oliver's History of Scotland - the nearest you get to a Scottish Michael Wood. And it actually taught me something; like how Edward betrayed the Lords of the Isles. H
On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 15:39:10 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:


It seems as if the Tudors are credited for much that was created by the last of the Plantagenet kings, especially King Richard. I suppose that can be attributed to the lack of survival (dare I say deliberate destruction in at least some cases) of records of King Richard's reign, leaving the only ready sources of information Tudor-spun chronicles and their derivative works.
A fine example, described by Anne F Sutton as an excellent, under-used survey of the Yorkist period: is C Richmond's paper English Naval Power in the Fifteenth Century [History, 52 (1967), pp 1-15.]

A J

On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 9:14 AM bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Just happened to catch the start of an episode of Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced. I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!Annoyed? You bet I am.




Richard liveth yet!




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:23:27
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I know he wasn't then but he was one of HT's great friends from his accession. Now to be that you had to qualify, like Daubeny or Uncle Jasper. He only had half a dozen all his life. And look how he supported King over the refurbishment of the Bishop's Palace. Clearly PW and his supporters knew of him.


Marie:

Yes, absolutely there was a lot of trust there. But, just to replace the goalposts, we have no evidence he was a spy. In fact, someone so well recognised and such good friends with Henry would have been useless as a spy because nobody would ever say anything incriminating in his presence.

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

2019-09-09 13:25:57
bale.paul-trevor@...
Reminds me of when  I was editing a film that included the lines about Charles II cooking Louis XIV style of wearing long haired wigs. I told the producer that neither Louis nor Charles  wore wigs until they started losing their hair in late middle age and that Louis in particular was proud of his gorgeous long locks. His courtiers being real bottom feeders bought wigs if they couldn't grow their own hair. Producer wouldn't at first believe me so I had to quote texts for her to look up. Many tv pundits have no real idea and like actors just say the words they're given! There's a show in France where tv quiz show hosts and presenters are the contestants on a quiz show themselves and the level of their ignorance appalls me! With the right script they can come across as being really knowledgable! 


Richard liveth yet! Le 9 sept. 2019 à 09:48 +0200, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <>, a écrit :

Rather like Adam Hart-Davis and his What the Tudors did for us, including printing!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 09 September 2019 04:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Church

 
 
 
 
Paul,
Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular?
Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes...
Doug
 
Paul wrote:
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.
Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.
I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.
Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!
If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.
1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!
Annoyed? You bet I am.
 
 

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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:30:29
Nicholas Brown


Hi Marie,
Sorry that I couldn't reply sooner. Thanks for putting the customs surrounding prayers and wills into perspective and for the link to Oliver King's will.

Hilary beat me to it and mentioned the letters about King and Perkin Warbeck. Spying may be the wrong word if the surveillance wasn't secretive, but since King was a mentor of Thomas Beaumont and Beaumont's sister was married to Brampton, that is a direct link back to Henry as private information as to who PW actually was. As Hilary also mentions, King was one of a very close circle around Henry, whose aloofness was hard to get past. Most people who managed it were those who had established family link some long term trust such as Jasper, MB and the Herberts. King didn't fit into the category, but if he had valuable information on PW that enabled Henry to keep control and maintain his throne, then Henry was enormously in his debt, especially if King and Beaumont had been instrumental in encouraging Brampton to co-operate with discrediting PW in the Setubal testimonies, and providing information about the Werbeques for the 'confession.' Beaumont's will does suggest a continued closeness between Thomas and Margaret, which makes it likely that they corresponded even after she moved to Flanders and Portugal with Brampton.

I do agree with you that Cecil Roth may have been to harsh on Brampton. I don't get a particularly negative impression of him. He was a survivor who looked after his own interests in difficult and unstable time, so it was in his interest to serve the King of Portugal and by extension the needs of Ferdinand, Isabella and Henry.

Nico

Marie wrote: It actually isn't at all unusual for people not to mention deceased parents in their wills. The reason is that mentions of family members weren't about courtesy. For instance, very often a person's son and heir is overlooked in a will because his share is automatic, and so only his younger siblings get a mention.
The only purpose in mentioning a deceased parent would be to fund prayers for their soul, to get them through Purgatory, but if such prayers were already taken care of then there would be no need. People tended in their wills, or final instructions to feoffees, to set aside income for prayers for their own souls after death. They might include deceased parents and spouses in those prayers if they were not already being adequately prayed for, but not otherwise. So the likeliest explanation is the prosaic one, that Thomas Beamond's father had funded ample prayers for his own soul. Or, of course, it may be that Thomas hadn't liked him, or maybe didn't remember him because he'd died when he was very young. All I can say is wills that don't mention deceased patents are probably more numerous than those that do. If only everybody had named their parents in their wills, 15th century genealogy would be a lot easier than it is. Thomas didn't bother asking for prayers for the soul of his mother or sister after their deaths either; he only mentioned them because he was making them bequests.
I wouldn't read anything fishy into the inclusion of prayers for the soul of Thomas' late bishop and mentor, Oliver King. The annual obit that Thomas wanted set up was to be said in the cathedral, after all. Sentiment aside, he probably took the view that if prayers for the soul of Bishop King were included in the obit, for which the cathedral was to be paid 100 marks, then the cathedral staff were much more likely to go on observing it faithfully in time to come than would otherwise have been the case.
I've never heard before that Oliver King spied on Perkin Warbeck. He was a trusted advisor to Henry VII, spoke French and was one of the ignoble 'new men' denounced by Warbeck in his proclamation, but I've just checked Arthurson and Wroe and neither has anything to say about spying activities.
Oliver King does have a will. It was proved at the PCC, so is downloadable from TNA website. It is indexed as the will of "Oliver Bishop of Bath and Wells" without surname, and with date 23 October 1503, so if you put in Oliver for first name and 1503 for the date range it should come up.
I have to say that I personally don't think it's likely that there is any connection between the fact that Thomas's former employer at Wells, and possible mentor, was keenly loyal to Henry VII, and that Thomas's sister Margaret, in a different political world, had married a supporter of Richard III who, in the early years after Bosworth picked up the boy later known as Perkin Warbeck in the Low Countries and brought him along with him and his wife when they moved to Portugal.I certainly see no evidence that the Beamond brother and sister, who are not known to have had any further involvement with that young man (who found himself a job as page to a Portuguese nobleman), were involved in later years in an active plot to betray him to King Henry, if that's where this is heading. Poor old Brampton gets an unfairly harsh press because Cecil Roth felt he had to come down hard on him for supporting the evil Richard III, and blamed Sir Edward himself for exaggerated claims made about him by his family after he was dead.
Sorry, once again the damp squib.









On Monday, 9 September 2019, 10:51:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.
In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.
There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.
Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?
And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche. H


On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 22:50:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:32:40
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,

Yes, Emma's children were Thomas and Margaret Beaumont/Beaumond, so she was married at least twice; once to a Mr. Beaumond and later to a Mr. Spayne. We are trying to find which Beaumond was her husband.

Doug



Doug wrote:
I'm sort of lost here.
We know Emma was married to a Spayne because she's listed in court records as both a widow and having the name Spayne. Is the connection between her and the Beaumont/Beaumonds because of her children's surname? (Thus presupposing a previous marriage to someone with that name?)





On Monday, 9 September 2019, 13:30:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:



Hi Marie,
Sorry that I couldn't reply sooner. Thanks for putting the customs surrounding prayers and wills into perspective and for the link to Oliver King's will.

Hilary beat me to it and mentioned the letters about King and Perkin Warbeck. Spying may be the wrong word if the surveillance wasn't secretive, but since King was a mentor of Thomas Beaumont and Beaumont's sister was married to Brampton, that is a direct link back to Henry as private information as to who PW actually was. As Hilary also mentions, King was one of a very close circle around Henry, whose aloofness was hard to get past. Most people who managed it were those who had established family link some long term trust such as Jasper, MB and the Herberts. King didn't fit into the category, but if he had valuable information on PW that enabled Henry to keep control and maintain his throne, then Henry was enormously in his debt, especially if King and Beaumont had been instrumental in encouraging Brampton to co-operate with discrediting PW in the Setubal testimonies, and providing information about the Werbeques for the 'confession.' Beaumont's will does suggest a continued closeness between Thomas and Margaret, which makes it likely that they corresponded even after she moved to Flanders and Portugal with Brampton.

I do agree with you that Cecil Roth may have been to harsh on Brampton. I don't get a particularly negative impression of him. He was a survivor who looked after his own interests in difficult and unstable time, so it was in his interest to serve the King of Portugal and by extension the needs of Ferdinand, Isabella and Henry.

Nico

Marie wrote: It actually isn't at all unusual for people not to mention deceased parents in their wills. The reason is that mentions of family members weren't about courtesy. For instance, very often a person's son and heir is overlooked in a will because his share is automatic, and so only his younger siblings get a mention.
The only purpose in mentioning a deceased parent would be to fund prayers for their soul, to get them through Purgatory, but if such prayers were already taken care of then there would be no need. People tended in their wills, or final instructions to feoffees, to set aside income for prayers for their own souls after death. They might include deceased parents and spouses in those prayers if they were not already being adequately prayed for, but not otherwise. So the likeliest explanation is the prosaic one, that Thomas Beamond's father had funded ample prayers for his own soul. Or, of course, it may be that Thomas hadn't liked him, or maybe didn't remember him because he'd died when he was very young. All I can say is wills that don't mention deceased patents are probably more numerous than those that do. If only everybody had named their parents in their wills, 15th century genealogy would be a lot easier than it is. Thomas didn't bother asking for prayers for the soul of his mother or sister after their deaths either; he only mentioned them because he was making them bequests.
I wouldn't read anything fishy into the inclusion of prayers for the soul of Thomas' late bishop and mentor, Oliver King. The annual obit that Thomas wanted set up was to be said in the cathedral, after all. Sentiment aside, he probably took the view that if prayers for the soul of Bishop King were included in the obit, for which the cathedral was to be paid 100 marks, then the cathedral staff were much more likely to go on observing it faithfully in time to come than would otherwise have been the case.
I've never heard before that Oliver King spied on Perkin Warbeck. He was a trusted advisor to Henry VII, spoke French and was one of the ignoble 'new men' denounced by Warbeck in his proclamation, but I've just checked Arthurson and Wroe and neither has anything to say about spying activities.
Oliver King does have a will. It was proved at the PCC, so is downloadable from TNA website. It is indexed as the will of "Oliver Bishop of Bath and Wells" without surname, and with date 23 October 1503, so if you put in Oliver for first name and 1503 for the date range it should come up.
I have to say that I personally don't think it's likely that there is any connection between the fact that Thomas's former employer at Wells, and possible mentor, was keenly loyal to Henry VII, and that Thomas's sister Margaret, in a different political world, had married a supporter of Richard III who, in the early years after Bosworth picked up the boy later known as Perkin Warbeck in the Low Countries and brought him along with him and his wife when they moved to Portugal.I certainly see no evidence that the Beamond brother and sister, who are not known to have had any further involvement with that young man (who found himself a job as page to a Portuguese nobleman), were involved in later years in an active plot to betray him to King Henry, if that's where this is heading. Poor old Brampton gets an unfairly harsh press because Cecil Roth felt he had to come down hard on him for supporting the evil Richard III, and blamed Sir Edward himself for exaggerated claims made about him by his family after he was dead.
Sorry, once again the damp squib.









On Monday, 9 September 2019, 10:51:09 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.
In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.
There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.
Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?
And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche. H


On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 22:50:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Just a thought. Could the lack of any provision in Emme Spayne's will for prayers for her earlier husband be due to a provision having already been made in his will? Do you have access to that particular will? Doug Who keeps getting lost...

Hi Doug,
The lack of prayers is in Thomas Beaumont's will (the Archdeacon of Wells), whose sister was married to Sir Edward Brampton. He didn't make any mention of his father, who must be deceased at this point, and it seems unusual not to observe this courtesy. Beaumont was promoted by and had a close relationship with Oliver King, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who spied on Perkin Warbeck. As yet, we haven't found Emma Spayne's will if she actually had one. It isn't clear who her first husband was, but I'm wondering if the father of her children was actually Oliver King (not unusual for priests at the time and they appear to have been part of a City of London social network. I haven't been able to find a will for Oliver King. Does anyone know if he had one?
Nico

On Saturday, 7 September 2019, 20:41:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:



Did anyone need to squeal other than Catesby, who according to More's story was roped in by virtue of his links with Hastings, and was the informant?

If Forster had squealed, it must have been voluntary since he wasn't arrested till the 14th, and he would have been rewarded (as Catesby was), not summarily arrested afterwards and clapped in irons in the Tower.

Marie

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

2019-09-09 13:39:04
bale.paul-trevor@...
The church was built without nails perpendicular style using just wood and what looked like wattle and daub for the wall plaster. 


Richard liveth yet! Le 9 sept. 2019 à 09:48 +0200, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <>, a écrit :

Rather like Adam Hart-Davis and his What the Tudors did for us, including printing!

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 09 September 2019 04:31
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Church

 
 
 
 
Paul,
Do you recall if the church was just a nice, plain Gothic? Or perhaps it was possibly an example of Perpendicular?
Apparently, this student of architecture skipped a few classes...
Doug
 
Paul wrote:
Just happened to catch the start of an episode of  Escape to the Country in which Jules Hudson went into a remarkably beautiful and well preserved church in Shropshire.
Built in 1406 it's a prime example of Tudor architecture he proudly announced.
I choked. He went to say he's a student of architecture.
Right! Like saying British politics are currently fine!
If you're going onto television as a self proclaimed expert you need to check your facts.
1406 was 79 years before the first Tudor stole the English crown from its rightful bearer!
Annoyed? You bet I am.
 
 

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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:44:33
mariewalsh2003
Doug wrote:I went surfing through Wikipedia and found this link to the Bishop of Ely's London palace in Camden/Holborn:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_PlaceSeemingly, every June there was, and still is, a Strawberry Fayre held in the grounds of St. Etheldreda's Church which served as the chapel for the Bishop of Ely' London palace.The article even included a quote from Richard III: My Lord of Ely, when I was last in Holborn, I saw good strawberries in your garden there. I do beseech you, do send for some of them.Now, the reason I quoted the above is because there's a small picture of Ely Place accompanying the article and the only way Richard could have seen the strawberries in the Bishop's garden was by entering it because where the view of the gardens isn't blocked by buildings, there's a wall (from the looks of it, five or six feet tall). I know it's Shakespeare and not history, but it certainly seems to me that if Richard knew about the state of Morton's strawberries, he'd have to have visited Ely Palace; if not recently then when?Or, most likely, is it just one of those things and doesn't even matter?


Marie:

The story originates with More, and More's education had been funded by Morton. Whether More ever visited Ely place in his early childhood, before Morton became Archbishop of Canterbury, I don't know.

I'm not sure what you mean about the 6-ft wall. There are two pictures in the article. One is an 18thC picture of the ruins, the other a bird's eye view of the area in the 16th century. I can see high walls around the quadrangle, and around what looks like an extremely formal pleasure garden, but surely the strawberries would have been grown in something more like a vegetable plot? (Wild strawberries spread like wildfire too, I know because I have them in my own garden and we need to do something about them.) I would suggest they would more probably have been grown in the large open area on the other side of the church marked "Field", which actually looks in the drawing to have been more like an orchard garden.

In fact, I clicked on Hatton Garden, and look what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden


Do I think it's important? Historically, I imagine you mean. Not at all. I think More probably made it up for dramatic effect and symbolic reasons. Strawberries are red and heart-shaped and symbolised love (like the strawberry hankie in Othello). This incident would have told 16th century readers that Richard was feigning friendship, and Morton innocently offered him his.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 13:53:43
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H
Marie's thoughts:There's a lot of merit in the idea that EW was trying to win over council members. In fact, if you see the Woodvilles as the fount of the plot (which I do), then it's rather built-in, isn't it? The problem is that this on its own doesn't explain the way events unfolded on Friday 13th. Nor does it get the Woodvilles over the hurdle that Richard had been formally recognised as Protector, and had the backing in this of Cardinal Bourchier. Richard can always sack councillors and co-opt new ones. The events of the day strongly evidence an armed plot, and it doesn't seem to me plausible that the Woodvilles could have regained supremacy without taking Richard out of the equation.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 14:02:34
Hilary Jones
I agree. Perhaps a bit of both. But it would be interesting indeed if Morton carried this through to HT in the aftermath of 1483 and that there were behind the scenes attempts to get the Church on board well before Bosworth. Bourchier was a Plantagenet and old. He probably lasted longer than they thought, like Warham later. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 13:56:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H
Marie's thoughts:There's a lot of merit in the idea that EW was trying to win over council members. In fact, if you see the Woodvilles as the fount of the plot (which I do), then it's rather built-in, isn't it? The problem is that this on its own doesn't explain the way events unfolded on Friday 13th. Nor does it get the Woodvilles over the hurdle that Richard had been formally recognised as Protector, and had the backing in this of Cardinal Bourchier. Richard can always sack councillors and co-opt new ones. The events of the day strongly evidence an armed plot, and it doesn't seem to me plausible that the Woodvilles could have regained supremacy without taking Richard out of the equation.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 14:18:43
Hilary Jones
Reading this again Marie, could Richard really sack a lot of the Council if they were stacked up against him, particularly bishops whom he would have respected? Humphrey of Gloucester had already run into trouble when taking on the Council. Richard could have perhaps retained the support of Bourchier, Howard and perhaps Suffolk? But the others, including Stanley and Buckingham, were up for grabs if the right incentive was offered. Hastings, who knows?
What was Dorset doing at this time? H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 14:05:49 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I agree. Perhaps a bit of both. But it would be interesting indeed if Morton carried this through to HT in the aftermath of 1483 and that there were behind the scenes attempts to get the Church on board well before Bosworth. Bourchier was a Plantagenet and old. He probably lasted longer than they thought, like Warham later. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 13:56:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483.EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects.After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know.If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. H
Marie's thoughts:There's a lot of merit in the idea that EW was trying to win over council members. In fact, if you see the Woodvilles as the fount of the plot (which I do), then it's rather built-in, isn't it? The problem is that this on its own doesn't explain the way events unfolded on Friday 13th. Nor does it get the Woodvilles over the hurdle that Richard had been formally recognised as Protector, and had the backing in this of Cardinal Bourchier. Richard can always sack councillors and co-opt new ones. The events of the day strongly evidence an armed plot, and it doesn't seem to me plausible that the Woodvilles could have regained supremacy without taking Richard out of the equation.

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

2019-09-09 16:22:01
Doug Stamate
Paul wrote: The church was built without nails perpendicular style using just wood and what looked like wattle and daub for the wall plaster..  Ah, that explains it! Everyone knows (apparently including students of architecture) that all buildings made of wood with those white plaster walls are from the Tudor Period. Did it also have those black, crisscrossed beams, inside and out? Honestly, what's wrong with the term medieval? Doug Who's willing to bet this student of architecture doesn't even know that Perpendicular was an outgrowth of Gothic!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2019-09-09 16:42:27
bale.paul-trevor@...
Of course it wasn't cooking, but damn spellchecker changes words so fast sometimes I don't notice. Should have read copied. Now how does copied become cooking? Gremlins everywhere these days.


Richard liveth yet! Le 9 sept. 2019 à 17:22 +0200, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <>, a écrit :

        Paul wrote: The church was built without nails perpendicular style using just wood and what looked like wattle and daub for the wall plaster..    Ah, that explains it! Everyone knows (apparently including students of architecture) that all buildings made of wood with those white plaster walls are from the Tudor Period. Did it also have those black, crisscrossed beams, inside and out? Honestly, what's wrong with the term medieval? Doug Who's willing to bet this student of architecture doesn't even know that Perpendicular was an outgrowth of Gothic!      
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 17:13:57
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.


We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-09 22:13:48
Nicholas Brown
Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche.


Hi Hilary,
I haven't had much time over the weekend, but I think I may have cracked the AALT.

Was Richard the Pinner the son of Thomas the Salter or a cousin? Unfortunately, Yahoo has chopped off some of the earlier messages on the thread including the one about John Beaumont, the Chandler's will. He had a few sons, Adam and I think a Richard. Could that be Richard the Pinner? Thomas could have been named for Thomas the Salter, who I think was a grandson of John the Chandler. Thomas the Salter's will is listed in the BHOL index, but the actual will doesn't seem to be a available. There is also a Thomas Beaumond, Woolmonger. I have just found the archive.org copy of London wills so I will go through that.

In the Luton Guild book, were there any Wilfords listed? I haven't found any in the Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire area, and they seem to be more of a London/Kent group.

Nico




On Monday, 9 September 2019, 17:14:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.


We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 05:49:08
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Of course, the story comes from More so that's a strike against it right there! The problem is, if I remember correctly, there are valid references to people having seen a memoir by Morton, so it'd be nice to know if that was the source or just some more of More's free-wheeling approach to writing history. Doug Who does wonder if More's Richard III wasn't an attempt at satirizing those writers of history who invented speeches for those they were writing about... Hilary wrote: Me butting in, Doug. Actually not a bad point. You see even if the wall was new, how often was Richard in London to go wondering round Holborn? If he just came to Westminster,then that was in those days almost another town and you'd usually go by barge into London to avoid possible robbers. True his mother was sometimes at Baynards but that's again on the river. It's like I say it all needs taking to bits to separate fact (what little there is) from fiction. H - I know it's Shakespeare but ....Shakespeare and More did know London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 06:42:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary, If I have the general flow of things correctly, the Woodville faction's first attempt in re-making the Council was when they planned to get young Edward to London so he could chair the Council. That, I think, was the real meaning behind Dorset's (?) boast that they ruled all. IOW, from the beginning the plan was to alter the composition of the Council, hobble the Protector and force Richard to choose between actually being a Protector, with the necessary power/authority to fulfill the job's requirement, or be in a position of holding the title of Protector, with all the responsibilities attendant to that position but not having the authority to actually do anything. AKA a scapegoat. That was Plan A. However, then Richard butted in and announced he would meet his nephew's party at/near Northampton and escort the young king into London, someone came up with idea of getting rid of Richard  permanently. I think it's likely that the presumption has been that the idea was Rivers, but it could very well have originated in London with either EW, Dorset or even Grey. The thing is, whoever originated the idea, when it failed EW felt so threatened that she scurried into sanctuary. That was Plan B. Plan C, or so I think, was simply a re-worked version of the original one, but without the advantage of having a presumably pliant Edward chairing the Council. So feelers would be put out, with people being queried about how they viewed the situation. This period would be where Rotherham, King and probably Morton were first gathered in. Bribes, perhaps incentives is a better term?, would be offered to people such as you've mentioned. Whether this second attempt at remaking the Council came to a halt when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council I can't say. But with the possibility that Edward might not even remain on the throne, it's safe to say the stakes increased tremendously. And, or so I think, this was where the methods Rotherham and King expected to employ parted from those planned by EW, Morton and, shortly, Hastings. It does seem to me that the likelihood is that the vote to accept the Pre-Contract's validity wasn't unanimous; which might explain the action of Arundel and others - they hadn't believed there'd been any Pre-Contract. However, once the Pre-Contract had been accepted by a majority of the Council, and later by a majority of the Three Estates, what were they to do? It's these people that were, I believe, the basis for the idea of a rebellion to re-install Edward on the throne. When it comes to MB being involved in any of this, I'm sticking with my belief that, at least until 1485, her only aim was getting her son back in England without his having to spend any time in any sort of confinement. I also tend to think that at this period HT's aims were still aligned with his mother's  getting back to England without being punished for not doing so all those other times. Whether EW was the mastermind behind all these maneuvers or simply a willing participant, I can't say. I do believe hat she was involved; at least to the extent of knowing there was a plot and that the aim of the plot was Richard's and Buckingham's deaths. If Morton was as skilled at intrigue and political maneuvering as his reputation suggests, it would make sense for the Woodville faction to try and get him on their side as soon as they could. I don't know of any thing that rules out Morton being attached, however loosely, to the Woodville faction from the moment Edward IV died. And being known to be so attached. Perhaps that's a reason for his being relegated to the coronation committee with Rotherham, who was also, if not in disgrace, almost certainly was the subject of a raised eyebrow or two for giving the Great Seal to EW? Doug Who is feeling more and more as if we're in one of those crime dramas where pictures of all the people involved and sheets of pertinent data are tacked onto one wall with threads running every which way? Maybe we need more wall-space? Hilary wrote: Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483. EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects. After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know. If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 19:28:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: Hilary, Would separating what happened during May/June 1483 into two threads, one concerning the period prior to the revelation of the Pre-Contract and a second for the period after the Pre-Contract was revealed, help any in regards to Morton's motive/s? Prior to the revelations about the Pre-Contract, the focus would have been on how to reduce the power/authority of the Protector, and consequently increasing the power of the Council  and its' members. If the authority of the Protector was reduced, while the position remained, then Richard would have had to rely even more on the Council, wouldn't he? A decrease in the the Protector's powers might also mean the return of various members of the Woodville faction as well. While young Edward was king, Rotherham, King, Morton and probably some others, would still remain important Council members, if only because of the support they could offer to, or withhold from, the Protector in his dealings with the Council. And that would be true whether or not the Protector's wings were clipped by the Council assuming more power over the Protector. During this period, the motive could have simply been regaining lost power, which is why we see people such as Rotherham and King associating with Morton, but not with Hastings. Then there's the Woodville contingent to keep in mind. EW was in sanctuary but, as demonstrated by the fears about her daughters being smuggled out, it's almost a certainty she was able to send and receive messages. I don't know if Forster was in Hertfordshire in May of 1483, but it seems likely and he would be in a position to send/receive messages from EW and assist in coordinating the maneuvers aimed at changing the pro-Richard as Protector majority into one where the Council dominated. OTOH, after the Pre-Contract had been brought before the Council the focus would have been on keeping Edward V on the throne. Which is how Hastings was brought in because, as best I can tell, the one thing that might unite such a disparate group would be Edward V being replaced on the throne by Richard. Going by what happened to these people after Hastings' execution, it would seem to me that Rotherham and King were still working on changing the minds of various Council members by the usual means of argument (possibly with bribery and blackmail as fall-backs)... Determining just who it was who decided the best option was killing Richard and Buckingham, I can't say. As best I can determine, however, EW was apparently willing to see Richard and Buckingham dead in late April, so any plot to remove those two at a later date might simply have been an updating of the original intention. Needless to say, if my suspicions are anywhere near what did happen, then EW moves into the position of prime mover, with Morton agreeing to go along. If say, the position of Lord Chancellor under Edward V had been offered as his reward, I can easily imagine Morton getting involved. Hastings would have been brought in because his position as Master of the Mint meant he could get a group of men into the Tower without arousing suspicion> Hastings' motive/s would have been the certain loss of Captaincy, likely loss of the Mastership of the Mint and possibly further financial losses in properties/rents. The attack, I presume, would have occurred after Richard and Buckingham left the Council chamber, but before they'd left the Tower grounds; most likely before they'd even gotten to their horses. FWIW, I have great difficulties with the idea that somehow Hastings' involvement was an attempt at revenge for any reason because, or so it seems to me, if the idea to involve Hastings was some sort of revenge then the only way for the revenge plot to succeed was for Richard to discover it and execute Hastings. Which would leave Richard alive and well  and sitting on the throne. If someone wanted to get rid of Hastings that badly, why not have him attacked as he made his way through one of medieval London's narrower streets? Doug Who apologizes for the length (again!), but once I get started... Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, agree with all this. A few brief quick things: In both versions of the alumni Hatteclif is listed as one of the first scholars if not the first. One assumes that he and King would have worked closely in their roles for Edward? I'm glad you've actually mentioned the Wykehamist connection which keeps cropping up. Magdalen College Oxford is very interesting because it attracted quite a lot of the Lancastrian element and continued to do so into the next century - people like the Danvers and the Wadhams (who of course went on to found their own college). Some of these people gave their land to th e College (and All Souls) and called their daughters Magdalen. I came to it through John Stokesley, Bishop of London under Henry VIII. He was almost certainly brought up by MB at Collyweston (he claims his place of birth in 1475 then owned by Clarence), appears on the scene after her death, was Master of Magdalen and one of the few if any people indicted by Cromwell that Henry refused to execute. A lot about him doesn't add up. And his mother came from St Albans where the family were bailiffs. I am not suggesting he was a prince by the way but he is 'interesting'. I agree about Morton; I can't tease out his motive at this point. I think there is a scenario where EW could have used Forster to get revenge on Hastings, who I still think could have been wound up/set whichever way you put it. Her brother and her son were under threat of death because of Hastings' action in warning Richard and insisting Rivers had a reduced reinue for his journey. Intelligence would tell her that Hastings was probably worried/miffed over Buckingham. And Forster had his own smaller financial score to settle. What's more Forster was free' to act and she wasn't. I do also think it's odd how Stillington seems to be remote from this. He was undoubtedly a Wykehamist - he'd followed Beckington (a founder of Eton) and he wanted to found his own school. Did the Yorkshire loyalty kick in or did he think it was all in vain because of the Pre-Contract? Finally, so much of the story of what happened on that Friday is written post hoc (most in HT's time) and therefore with bias and has no doubt been 'glamourised' in the telling - one of the reasons I wrote the post Our only contemporar y evidence is Stalworth and Forster's appeal to HT (is that right)?. And isn't there a Cely letter but it's date is unsure? And Croyland too is I recall written in 1486. Other 'outsiders' like Mancini are biased because of their reader or based on inaccurate gossip. JAH doesn't even mention Forster and has Hastings being killed by Richard's guards when he tries to kill him. It all needs taking to bits - if we can - and starting again. BTW I grow strawberries and I've never had any ripe on 13th June. Now I know I'm a bit further north but did Morton have a polytunnel or was the world so much wamer then?:) :)
--
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: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 11:38:17
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there. H


On Monday, 9 September 2019, 22:49:40 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, at the weekend I went through the AALT indexes from 1400 (those available) looking for Beaumonds and Spaynes. Now before anyone points it out of course not everyone took people to Court or was the subject of Court action. I did check all name variations that we know.In the period in which our Thomas's father might have been around there's a John Beaumond (1472) and Robert Beaumond, Clerk (1463) in London as well as Richard, our Pinner. Interestingly, there's a John and Thomas in Oxfordshire, so they must have been related to our Salter The rest are from the Devon, Yorkshire and Lords Beaumont's families. No others except an early one in Essex.There are very few Spaynes, all in Bedfordshire and our Scrivener and a Richard Spayne in London.Again a thought.. We know Salter Thomas left property in London to Richard Beaumond, almost certainly our Pinner. Now a Pinner, according to the definitions I've found can either be someone who makes pins or who pins garments out for the tailoring trade (i.e. as in dressmaking now). I know King died in 1444 but there is just time for Richard and he to have known each other through this. Also might not Thomas have been named after Salter Thomas? We know there was a Richard junior as well, so that name could have been 'used up'?And MargaretBeaumont, wife of John Everard, married again - to Thomas Welby. Everard was a Mercer, Welby I'm still chasing. There's a case involving Hugh Wyche.


Hi Hilary,
I haven't had much time over the weekend, but I think I may have cracked the AALT.

Was Richard the Pinner the son of Thomas the Salter or a cousin? Unfortunately, Yahoo has chopped off some of the earlier messages on the thread including the one about John Beaumont, the Chandler's will. He had a few sons, Adam and I think a Richard. Could that be Richard the Pinner? Thomas could have been named for Thomas the Salter, who I think was a grandson of John the Chandler. Thomas the Salter's will is listed in the BHOL index, but the actual will doesn't seem to be a available. There is also a Thomas Beaumond, Woolmonger. I have just found the archive.org copy of London wills so I will go through that.

In the Luton Guild book, were there any Wilfords listed? I haven't found any in the Bedfordshire/Hertfordshire area, and they seem to be more of a London/Kent group.

Nico




On Monday, 9 September 2019, 17:14:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.


We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 11:50:56
Hilary Jones
I agree Doug. More was a scholar of Tacitus who has heroes and villains, nothing in between. There are some who think it's a sort of historical exercise; him having a go at writing like Tacitus - the sort a lecturer would set today - you know, write me a poem in the style of Emily Dickinson (which my daughter once had to do).
Another question around More is why he wrote it unless as an exercise or a satire. You see he certainly hadn't got on with HT, he only just avoided an earlier chop, so why would he glamorise him and why remind Henry VIII of the way his family got the Crown? And of course it was never finished.
Then we have Croyland, written in 1486 I recall? It's so detailed (so scholars say) that it must have been written by someone who was there. But could it not also have been written by someone who liked a good story and who wanted to please MB and HT - remember MB's association with Croyland? And then Mancini, who picked up London gossip and couldn't speak English.
I reckon all we really have to go on are those few words from Stalworth? H

On Tuesday, 10 September 2019, 05:49:16 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Of course, the story comes from More so that's a strike against it right there! The problem is, if I remember correctly, there are valid references to people having seen a memoir by Morton, so it'd be nice to know if that was the source or just some more of More's free-wheeling approach to writing history. Doug Who does wonder if More's Richard III wasn't an attempt at satirizing those writers of history who invented speeches for those they were writing about... Hilary wrote: Me butting in, Doug. Actually not a bad point. You see even if the wall was new, how often was Richard in London to go wondering round Holborn? If he just came to Westminster,then that was in those days almost another town and you'd usually go by barge into London to avoid possible robbers. True his mother was sometimes at Baynards but that's again on the river. It's like I say it all needs taking to bits to separate fact (what little there is) from fiction. H - I know it's Shakespeare but ....Shakespeare and More did know London.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 12:08:41
Hilary Jones
Doug, we agree:) :)
I think during MB's visits to sooth EW she might have suggested the political solution of getting the Council more on side. I don't think she had any part in plotting an assassination of Richard or her nephew; that isn't MB.
Re Morton, having watched the Neil Oliver programme on Scotland, I wonder whether Morton had bumped into any Scottish bishops or ambassadors at the French Court? France and Scotland were long-term allies and Morton was in France for a long time. If he had, he would know that Scottish bishops' allegiances were direct to the Pope and they could actually get sanction from him to remove a king they thought ineffective (or not of their choosing). This could arguably have given Morton delusions of grandeur, what if English bishops could do the same, that would be a marvellous solution. It would be the Church who literally anointed the sovereign, not the sovereign endorsing them. It's a thought.
I don't often mention UK politics but as you know there is turmoil at the moment. Last night I happened to tune in to a former Attorney General addressing the House about (to put it briefly) something secret which was vital to the nation which had been brought to his notice and which his conscience told him he had to reveal. And it so reminded me of Stillington. You see I've formerly been quite scathing about his revelation because of his conscience but if his revelation was conducted in the same way as the guy last night I can quite see how he won over the Council. It was almost like watching a replay of a similar happening of over five hundred years' ago- albeit not the same subject. H
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019, 06:42:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, If I have the general flow of things correctly, the Woodville faction's first attempt in re-making the Council was when they planned to get young Edward to London so he could chair the Council. That, I think, was the real meaning behind Dorset's (?) boast that they ruled all. IOW, from the beginning the plan was to alter the composition of the Council, hobble the Protector and force Richard to choose between actually being a Protector, with the necessary power/authority to fulfill the job's requirement, or be in a position of holding the title of Protector, with all the responsibilities attendant to that position but not having the authority to actually do anything. AKA a scapegoat. That was Plan A. However, then Richard butted in and announced he would meet his nephew's party at/near Northampton and escort the young king into London, someone came up with idea of getting rid of Richard  permanently. I think it's likely that the presumption has been that the idea was Rivers, but it could very well have originated in London with either EW, Dorset or even Grey. The thing is, whoever originated the idea, when it failed EW felt so threatened that she scurried into sanctuary. That was Plan B. Plan C, or so I think, was simply a re-worked version of the original one, but without the advantage of having a presumably pliant Edward chairing the Council. So feelers would be put out, with people being queried about how they viewed the situation. This period would be where Rotherham, King and probably Morton were first gathered in. Bribes, perhaps incentives is a better term?, would be offered to people such as you've mentioned. Whether this second attempt at remaking the Council came to a halt when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council I can't say. But with the possibility that Edward might not even remain on the throne, it's safe to say the stakes increased tremendously. And, or so I think, this was where the methods Rotherham and King expected to employ parted from those planned by EW, Morton and, shortly, Hastings. It does seem to me that the likelihood is that the vote to accept the Pre-Contract's validity wasn't unanimous; which might explain the action of Arundel and others - they hadn't believed there'd been any Pre-Contract. However, once the Pre-Contract had been accepted by a majority of the Council, and later by a majority of the Three Estates, what were they to do? It's these people that were, I believe, the basis for the idea of a rebellion to re-install Edward on the throne. When it comes to MB being involved in any of this, I'm sticking with my belief that, at least until 1485, her only aim was getting her son back in England without his having to spend any time in any sort of confinement. I also tend to think that at this period HT's aims were still aligned with his mother's  getting back to England without being punished for not doing so all those other times. Whether EW was the mastermind behind all these maneuvers or simply a willing participant, I can't say. I do believe hat she was involved; at least to the extent of knowing there was a plot and that the aim of the plot was Richard's and Buckingham's deaths. If Morton was as skilled at intrigue and political maneuvering as his reputation suggests, it would make sense for the Woodville faction to try and get him on their side as soon as they could. I don't know of any thing that rules out Morton being attached, however loosely, to the Woodville faction from the moment Edward IV died. And being known to be so attached. Perhaps that's a reason for his being relegated to the coronation committee with Rotherham, who was also, if not in disgrace, almost certainly was the subject of a raised eyebrow or two for giving the Great Seal to EW? Doug Who is feeling more and more as if we're in one of those crime dramas where pictures of all the people involved and sheets of pertinent data are tacked onto one wall with threads running every which way? Maybe we need more wall-space? Hilary wrote: Doug et al just a thought I had overnight about King, Rotherham and Morton in June 1483. EW's party had failed to achieve the removal of Richard by force on the road to London. Could not someone - the more intelligent MB - have suggested to her that a political solution was the answer i.e. to get the Council on her side? The laymen are going to be harder than the bishops so start with the bishops, the Wykehamists. How? Give them something - promise them that young Edward's reign will oversee the finishing of King's College, Cambridge. And that is exactly what HT did when he became king. In fact it's the point Lucy Worsley makes when she starts her programme - how HT tied himself to the memory of Holy Henry (putting his own Tudor roses there on the way). And one of the October rebels is William Overey, Waynflete's sidekick. The two seem to have been a cross between Empson and Dudley and heir hunters when sniffing out money for their projects. After EW has a number of bishops on side she can start on the laymen - people like Suffolk and Arundel who haven't bothered to turn up but sent their sons. What were they promised? Who knows? But Arundel did defect, just after the Coronation. And did MB have a go at Buckingham, but it didn't work at that point? Hastings, I still don't know. If this did in fact happen, even though their collusion with EW (which wasn't treason) was sniffed out, then Morton could have conveyed the whole idea to HT and who knows for how long he was clandestinely working on the clergy.. And of course MB had Urswick as her go-between, another October rebel. On Sunday, 8 September 2019, 19:28:05 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: Hilary, Would separating what happened during May/June 1483 into two threads, one concerning the period prior to the revelation of the Pre-Contract and a second for the period after the Pre-Contract was revealed, help any in regards to Morton's motive/s? Prior to the revelations about the Pre-Contract, the focus would have been on how to reduce the power/authority of the Protector, and consequently increasing the power of the Council  and its' members. If the authority of the Protector was reduced, while the position remained, then Richard would have had to rely even more on the Council, wouldn't he? A decrease in the the Protector's powers might also mean the return of various members of the Woodville faction as well. While young Edward was king, Rotherham, King, Morton and probably some others, would still remain important Council members, if only because of the support they could offer to, or withhold from, the Protector in his dealings with the Council. And that would be true whether or not the Protector's wings were clipped by the Council assuming more power over the Protector. During this period, the motive could have simply been regaining lost power, which is why we see people such as Rotherham and King associating with Morton, but not with Hastings. Then there's the Woodville contingent to keep in mind. EW was in sanctuary but, as demonstrated by the fears about her daughters being smuggled out, it's almost a certainty she was able to send and receive messages. I don't know if Forster was in Hertfordshire in May of 1483, but it seems likely and he would be in a position to send/receive messages from EW and assist in coordinating the maneuvers aimed at changing the pro-Richard as Protector majority into one where the Council dominated. OTOH, after the Pre-Contract had been brought before the Council the focus would have been on keeping Edward V on the throne. Which is how Hastings was brought in because, as best I can tell, the one thing that might unite such a disparate group would be Edward V being replaced on the throne by Richard. Going by what happened to these people after Hastings' execution, it would seem to me that Rotherham and King were still working on changing the minds of various Council members by the usual means of argument (possibly with bribery and blackmail as fall-backs).... Determining just who it was who decided the best option was killing Richard and Buckingham, I can't say. As best I can determine, however, EW was apparently willing to see Richard and Buckingham dead in late April, so any plot to remove those two at a later date might simply have been an updating of the original intention. Needless to say, if my suspicions are anywhere near what did happen, then EW moves into the position of prime mover, with Morton agreeing to go along. If say, the position of Lord Chancellor under Edward V had been offered as his reward, I can easily imagine Morton getting involved. Hastings would have been brought in because his position as Master of the Mint meant he could get a group of men into the Tower without arousing suspicion> Hastings' motive/s would have been the certain loss of Captaincy, likely loss of the Mastership of the Mint and possibly further financial losses in properties/rents. The attack, I presume, would have occurred after Richard and Buckingham left the Council chamber, but before they'd left the Tower grounds; most likely before they'd even gotten to their horses. FWIW, I have great difficulties with the idea that somehow Hastings' involvement was an attempt at revenge for any reason because, or so it seems to me, if the idea to involve Hastings was some sort of revenge then the only way for the revenge plot to succeed was for Richard to discover it and execute Hastings. Which would leave Richard alive and well  and sitting on the throne. If someone wanted to get rid of Hastings that badly, why not have him attacked as he made his way through one of medieval London's narrower streets? Doug Who apologizes for the length (again!), but once I get started... Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, agree with all this. A few brief quick things: In both versions of the alumni Hatteclif is listed as one of the first scholars if not the first. One assumes that he and King would have worked closely in their roles for Edward? I'm glad you've actually mentioned the Wykehamist connection which keeps cropping up. Magdalen College Oxford is very interesting because it attracted quite a lot of the Lancastrian element and continued to do so into the next century - people like the Danvers and the Wadhams (who of course went on to found their own college). Some of these people gave their land to th e College (and All Souls) and called their daughters Magdalen. I came to it through John Stokesley, Bishop of London under Henry VIII. He was almost certainly brought up by MB at Collyweston (he claims his place of birth in 1475 then owned by Clarence), appears on the scene after her death, was Master of Magdalen and one of the few if any people indicted by Cromwell that Henry refused to execute. A lot about him doesn't add up. And his mother came from St Albans where the family were bailiffs. I am not suggesting he was a prince by the way but he is 'interesting'. I agree about Morton; I can't tease out his motive at this point. I think there is a scenario where EW could have used Forster to get revenge on Hastings, who I still think could have been wound up/set whichever way you put it. Her brother and her son were under threat of death because of Hastings' action in warning Richard and insisting Rivers had a reduced reinue for his journey. Intelligence would tell her that Hastings was probably worried/miffed over Buckingham. And Forster had his own smaller financial score to settle. What's more Forster was free' to act and she wasn't. I do also think it's odd how Stillington seems to be remote from this. He was undoubtedly a Wykehamist - he'd followed Beckington (a founder of Eton) and he wanted to found his own school. Did the Yorkshire loyalty kick in or did he think it was all in vain because of the Pre-Contract? Finally, so much of the story of what happened on that Friday is written post hoc (most in HT's time) and therefore with bias and has no doubt been 'glamourised' in the telling - one of the reasons I wrote the post Our only contemporar y evidence is Stalworth and Forster's appeal to HT (is that right)?. And isn't there a Cely letter but it's date is unsure? And Croyland too is I recall written in 1486. Other 'outsiders' like Mancini are biased because of their reader or based on inaccurate gossip. JAH doesn't even mention Forster and has Hastings being killed by Richard's guards when he tries to kill him. It all needs taking to bits - if we can - and starting again. BTW I grow strawberries and I've never had any ripe on 13th June. Now I know I'm a bit further north but did Morton have a polytunnel or was the world so much wamer then?:) :)
--
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: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 12:17:12
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, I agree winning over the Council would have been a long-term project. I agree with Doug's interpretation. That was the political solution, probably suggested by MB. The short-term was to get rid of Richard - and to get Rivers and Grey free. Was this engineered by Dorset, Dorset and Hastings, with or without EW's knowledge?
And yes, I agree about the letter to York - Richard was more than on edge. What probably didn't help was Richard and Buckingham's entry into London, displaying the confiscated weapons of Rivers and Grey. I think that also could have put London a bit on edge against Richard. After all what London merchants wanted was to get on with their business of making money, not be the centre of some very unwelcome clash. I know Richard had to prove that he'd been targeted but with hindsight it was a misjudgment. My view of course. I think they would have wished they could have got back to the days of Edward who in modern speak went out amongst them to buy his morning paper every day. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 17:14:03 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary, sorry I accidentally wiped my first attempt so this will be brief.

Suborning the whole council like that would be a long-term project, and the important thing for the Queen would be to take Richard out before the planned extension of his protectorate that was to be voted on by parliament immediately after the coronation.

Anyhow, the fact is that the plotters didn't allow themselves that sort of time, whether or not you think it might have been a cleverer idea. We are not talking about Richard having arrested people who had not as yet done anything; that would have to have resulted in a regular court case with evidences shown and argued about. These were people caught in the act. Also, remember Richard's letters to York and Lord Neville a few days earlier. Whatever he'd discovered was being planned had him completely freaked out.


We don't know where Dorset was at this time, to cut a long story short. He was no longer in sanctuary with the Queen, and his purpose in leaving there is not known but I would think there must have been one.


Marie



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 16:01:17
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote

If I have the general flow of things correctly, the Woodville faction's first attempt in re-making the Council was when they planned to get young Edward to London so he could chair the Council. That, I think, was the real meaning behind Dorset's (?) boast that they ruled all. IOW, from the beginning the plan was to alter the composition of the Council, hobble the Protector and force Richard to choose between actually being a Protector, with the necessary power/authority to fulfill the job's requirement, or be in a position of holding the title of Protector, with all the responsibilities attendant to that position but not having the authority to actually do anything. AKA a scapegoat. That was Plan A.



Marie answers:


I'm afraid that isn't what the sources tell us.


The Woodville faction did not feel bound by Edward's desire for his brother to be Protector at all - they weren't relying on numbers in council, or the young Edward V, to 'hobble' him. The Protector had specific powers, in any case, for the defence of the King and the realm.

The point about a protectorate was that, albeit the powers of a protector were much more limited than those of a regent and he had to govern in cooperation with other council members, it was a recognition of the fact that the King was unable to rule in his own right. Edward V's presence in Council during a protectorate would, therefore, not of itself have made any difference.

The Woodvilles' actual policy was to rely on the precedent set in the 1420s, when it was ruled by parliament that (a) the late king's wishes could not bind people's actions after his death, and (b) it was incompatible with the royal dignity to have a protector once the king had been crowned.


So, in order to ensure that Richard would not be Protector, they aimed to get Edward crowned as soon as possible, and the date they had set for the coronation was 4 May. This is confirmed by the letter written (ostensibly) by King Edward himself and received by the Mayor and Council of King's Lynn on 24 April. I quote from it: (in modern spelling-

" And, where it hath pleased Him [God] to ordain and provide us to succeed and inherit my said lord and father in the pre-eminence and dignity royal of the crowns of England and France, we intend, by Him that sendeth all power, . . . so to govern, rule and protect this our realm of England as shall be to His pleasure, our honour and the well and surety of all our subjects in the same, and to be at our city of London in all convenient haste, by God's grace, to be crowned at Westminster. . . . not failing to execute our commandment and your authority in that behalf for favour or doubt of any person, what estate or degree he be of, . . ."

I have emboldened particularly important words and phrases, which as you can see confirm the Woodville intention for an immediate coronation following which Edward will rule in his own right, his powers to include the protection of the realm. Opposition from a highly placed individual or individuals is anticipated in the last phrase.


That was Plan A, and seems to me to be unarguable given the evidence. Richard's plan to meet Rivers and the King on their way south is therefore a very serious problem for the Woodvilles. Richard's claim, when he reached London, was that the Woodvilles had attempted to ambush and kill him. The Tudor tradition, on the other hand, claims the Woodvilles had no concerns about Richard and he was simply a villain paving his own way to the throne. You pays you money, as they say. For me, the Woodvilles' stated aims certainly provide more than adequate motive for an attempt on their part to either kill or imprison Richard to prevent him reaching London and effecting a delay to the hasty coronation, the purpose of which he very well knew.


I agree that Friday 13th was a Plan C (or perhaps Plan B - I'm not sure whether dashing into sanctuary counts as a plan). Where Edward V sat (literally) in it all, I don't know. He must have attended council meetings at the Tower in order to prepare him for governance when he was a bit older; and we know he was signing documents by the advice of his uncle and the Council, etc. Did he attend the meeting of Friday 13th? If not, why not? If he did, why is his presence not mentioned by any source at all?

It seems to me that Richard would not have wanted the King at the meeting if he knew things were going to turn nasty, and (assuming the plot was genuine) the plotters wouldn't have wanted him there either. So his apparent absence from that particular meeting may have been unusual.



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-10 16:21:15
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


You are probably right about the weapons, but if Mancini's account is to be believed (and he was living in London at the time), the city had already been disrupted by a last-minute attempt by the Queen and Dorset to get them to take up arms against Gloucester. Both sides were reflecting their own ratcheted-up concerns on to the population, never apparently imagining said population might prefer to put their fingers in their ears.


But, to change the subject. I finally got a minute to check the St. Albans Abbey Register properly, and you were right about the grant of stewardship of the Abbey lands. Abbot Wallingford had granted the post to John Forster for life in June 1471, and then granted it to Hastings for life just before Christmas 1478. This can't have been an accident. An institution like that can't have failed to know the identity of the steward of all its properties. It was the sort of thing Edward IV did all the time, actually - regranting offices and lands without formally cancelling the previous grant.

Now it may be that Hastings kept Forster on as his deputy, but that would have been at greatly reduced remuneration since Hastings was now receiving all the wages and perks and would only have passed a proportion of those on to his deputy.

The 1482 grant, which I have now fully translated, granted the office to both men for life jointly and severally (coniunctim et divisim), which meant either of them could exercise the office without reference to the other - one can't see how that could have worked if both were genuinely trying to do the job themselves; I think it is unlikely that Hastings would have tried to do the job himself, but both were allowed to appoint a deputy so it would have been a messy situation unless the two men were actually expected to cooperate with each other in friendly fashion. The indentures specified that the wages and perks were all to go to Forster as long as he lived, but that after his death Hastings would be sole steward and enjoy these benefits himself. Again, I feel that Forster was the one expected to do the actual work.

I wonder if Forster had not proved a very diligent steward, and the Abbey had initially replaced him with Hastings in order for him to work under Hastings, who would then have the onus of keeping him in order? If so, the 1482 grant would have vastly improved Forster's position in that it restored to him the full wages and perks, but it still left Hastings with the power to step in. That, really is the only reason I can think for the abbey making a joint grant rather than simply regranting the office to Forster with reversion to Lord Hastings.

However this business started, I think the likeliest outcome would have been that this situation had enabled Hastings and Forster to get to know each other, assuming they didn't already.


Marie

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 05:15:20
Doug Stamate
Marie, I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line? To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it? As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine. My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple? I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself? I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure. Doug Marie wrote: There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story. Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable. I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him. Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham. I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together. Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important. P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 05:21:40
Doug Stamate
Happy hunting!
Nico wrote:
Yes, Emma's children were Thomas and Margaret Beaumont/Beaumond, so she was married at least twice; once to a Mr. Beaumond and later to a Mr. Spayne. We are trying to find which Beaumond was her husband.

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



Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 05:59:39
Doug Stamate
Marie, Yes, I was thinking of that more formal garden area. Possibly because I associate strawberries with being planted in their own specific area, as opposed to their being gathered from, say, wherever they might be growing wild. FWIW, there's also what appears to be some sort of garden directly in front of the church/chapel and, as it's definitely outside the walls, whatever might be growing there would be visible to anyone passing. I don't recall having heard about strawberries symbolizing love (have to brush up my Shakespeare?). However, I did do a Google search and discovered the Romans used strawberries for medicinal purposes, that Charles V of France (1364-1380) had strawberries in his garden and that The entire strawberry plant was used to depressive illnesses. Doug Who finds eating strawberries to be anything but depressive... Marie wrote: The story originates with More, and More's education had been funded by Morton. Whether More ever visited Ely Place in his childhood, before Morton became Archbishop of Canterbury, I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean about the 6-ft wall. There are two pictures in the article. One is an 18thC picture of the ruins, the other a bird's eye view of the area in the 16th century. I can see high walls around the quadrangle, and around what looks like an extremely formal pleasure garden, but surely the strawberries would have been grown in something more like a vegetable plot? (Wild strawberries spread like wildfire too, I know because I have them in my own garden and we need to do something about them.) I would suggest they would more probably have been grown on the other side of the church marked Field, which actually looks in the drawing to have been more like an orchard garden. In fact, I clicked on Hatton Garden, and look what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatton_Garden Do I think it's important? Historically, I imagine you mean. Not at all. I think More probably made it up for dramatic effect and symbolic reasons. Strawberries are red and heart-shaped and symbolised love (like the strawberry hankie in Othello). This incident would have told 16th century readers that Richard was feigning friendship, and Morton innocently offered him his.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 06:16:34
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Would Richard have even needed to sack a lot of the Council? Dorset was either in sanctuary, in hiding or exile. Rivers was in custody; as were Grey and Vaughan, although whether the latter two would have been Council members I can't say. We can presume from the actions of the Council after Richard arrived in London that a majority of its' members supported him, otherwise why go to the trouble, and danger, of trying to remove him by force? Of course, after 13 June, Hastings was dead and Morton, Rotherham and King (of those likely to be on the Council) were in custody and, again presumably, I would imagine the Council passed its' recommendations in favor of the Pre-Contract on to the Three Estates. Doug Hilary wrote: Reading this again Marie, could Richard really sack a lot of the Council if they were stacked up against him, particularly bishops whom he would have respected? Humphrey of Gloucester had already run into trouble when taking on the Council. Richard could have perhaps retained the support of Bourchier, Howard and perhaps Suffolk? But the others, including Stanley and Buckingham, were up for grabs if the right incentive was offered. Hastings, who knows?What was Dorset doing at this time?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 09:27:23
Stephen
Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php

Marie: Approximately which year was it?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 September 2019 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

 
 
 
 
Marie,
I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line?
To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it?
As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine.
My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple?
I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself?
I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure.
Doug
 
Marie wrote:
There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.
Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.
I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed.. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.
Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.
I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.
Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important.
P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed.. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.
 

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




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 09:46:56
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug (and Marie if this helps a bit to save you looking up sources) I've looked at JAH 'The Mythology of the Princes' chapter 'What did Lord Hastings do?'. He doesn't really give us any answers but the chronology/interpretation is interesting.
Firstly, he has hostility between Hastings and EW, Rivers and particularly Dorset. He has him on friendly terms with Richard, but not that close. He didn't ride out to meet him or the young King. And he has him in agreement with Edward V being king as long as the Woodvilles are kept in the background.
Mancini (written in December 1483) 9th June - Meeting at the Guildhall of the 'Three Estates' (I take it by this he means the Commons and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal - Three Estates is the French term for this). Stillington announces the impediment to Edward's kingship.Then follows JAH's interpretation which is that 'presumably' Hastings must have been hostile and 'certain other lords' must have also had reservations 'these included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York - who previously in April had been working with Elizabeth Widville - and Bishop John Morton of Ely' Mancini again after the Guildhall meeting Hastings, Morton and Rotherham 'were known to have' met in secret in each others' houses. 'Presumably' again ....since they objected to the removal of Edward V from the throne they were planning a campaign in the young King's defence. 'They must have felt that they needed to oppose the lord protector and the government he was leading.JAH The Council was split into two halves, those opposing the removal of Edward who were in the majority - and the rest. Gloucester decided to arrange two meetings where the opposing factions were to meet separately and they were to be held simultaneously.Paul Murray Kendall One meeting took place a the Palace of Westminster the other at the Tower of London(Don't quite follow the reasoning here. Why were Richard and Buckingham with the hostile lot? That is they must have been if Rotherham, Hastings and Morton were there?) Account of a London Citizen (now dated to the sixteenth century) 'in the mene tyme ther was dyvers imagnyd the deyth of the Duke of Gloceter, and hit as asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges ws takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith , the xiij of June Anno 1483'Continuator of the Crowland Chronicle 1486 On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 06:16:41 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Would Richard have even needed to sack a lot of the Council? Dorset was either in sanctuary, in hiding or exile. Rivers was in custody; as were Grey and Vaughan, although whether the latter two would have been Council members I can't say. We can presume from the actions of the Council after Richard arrived in London that a majority of its' members supported him, otherwise why go to the trouble, and danger, of trying to remove him by force? Of course, after 13 June, Hastings was dead and Morton, Rotherham and King (of those likely to be on the Council) were in custody and, again presumably, I would imagine the Council passed its' recommendations in favor of the Pre-Contract on to the Three Estates. Doug Hilary wrote: Reading this again Marie, could Richard really sack a lot of the Council if they were stacked up against him, particularly bishops whom he would have respected? Humphrey of Gloucester had already run into trouble when taking on the Council. Richard could have perhaps retained the support of Bourchier, Howard and perhaps Suffolk? But the others, including Stanley and Buckingham, were up for grabs if the right incentive was offered. Hastings, who knows?What was Dorset doing at this time?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 09:49:02
Hilary Jones
Please delete Yahoo went mad and sent before finished. H
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 09:47:02 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug (and Marie if this helps a bit to save you looking up sources) I've looked at JAH 'The Mythology of the Princes' chapter 'What did Lord Hastings do?'. He doesn't really give us any answers but the chronology/interpretation is interesting.
Firstly, he has hostility between Hastings and EW, Rivers and particularly Dorset. He has him on friendly terms with Richard, but not that close. He didn't ride out to meet him or the young King. And he has him in agreement with Edward V being king as long as the Woodvilles are kept in the background.
Mancini (written in December 1483) 9th June - Meeting at the Guildhall of the 'Three Estates' (I take it by this he means the Commons and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal - Three Estates is the French term for this). Stillington announces the impediment to Edward's kingship.Then follows JAH's interpretation which is that 'presumably' Hastings must have been hostile and 'certain other lords' must have also had reservations 'these included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York - who previously in April had been working with Elizabeth Widville - and Bishop John Morton of Ely' Mancini again after the Guildhall meeting Hastings, Morton and Rotherham 'were known to have' met in secret in each others' houses. 'Presumably' again .....since they objected to the removal of Edward V from the throne they were planning a campaign in the young King's defence. 'They must have felt that they needed to oppose the lord protector and the government he was leading.JAH The Council was split into two halves, those opposing the removal of Edward who were in the majority - and the rest. Gloucester decided to arrange two meetings where the opposing factions were to meet separately and they were to be held simultaneously.Paul Murray Kendall One meeting took place a the Palace of Westminster the other at the Tower of London(Don't quite follow the reasoning here. Why were Richard and Buckingham with the hostile lot? That is they must have been if Rotherham, Hastings and Morton were there?) Account of a London Citizen (now dated to the sixteenth century) 'in the mene tyme ther was dyvers imagnyd the deyth of the Duke of Gloceter, and hit as asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges ws takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith , the xiij of June Anno 1483'Continuator of the Crowland Chronicle 1486 On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 06:16:41 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Would Richard have even needed to sack a lot of the Council? Dorset was either in sanctuary, in hiding or exile. Rivers was in custody; as were Grey and Vaughan, although whether the latter two would have been Council members I can't say. We can presume from the actions of the Council after Richard arrived in London that a majority of its' members supported him, otherwise why go to the trouble, and danger, of trying to remove him by force? Of course, after 13 June, Hastings was dead and Morton, Rotherham and King (of those likely to be on the Council) were in custody and, again presumably, I would imagine the Council passed its' recommendations in favor of the Pre-Contract on to the Three Estates. Doug Hilary wrote: Reading this again Marie, could Richard really sack a lot of the Council if they were stacked up against him, particularly bishops whom he would have respected? Humphrey of Gloucester had already run into trouble when taking on the Council. Richard could have perhaps retained the support of Bourchier, Howard and perhaps Suffolk? But the others, including Stanley and Buckingham, were up for grabs if the right incentive was offered. Hastings, who knows?What was Dorset doing at this time?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 10:10:17
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug (and Marie if this helps a bit to save you looking up sources) I've looked at JAH 'The Mythology of the Princes' chapter 'What did Lord Hastings do?'. He doesn't really give us any answers but the chronology/interpretation is interesting.
Firstly, he has hostility between Hastings and EW, Rivers and particularly Dorset. He has him on friendly terms with Richard, but not that close - he didn't ride out to meet him or the young King. And he has him in agreement with Edward V being king as long as the Woodvilles are kept in the background.
Mancini (written in December 1483) 9th June - Meeting at the Guildhall of the 'Three Estates' (I take it by this he means the Commons and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal - Three Estates is the French term for this). Stillington announces the impediment to Edward's kingship.Then follows JAH's interpretation which is that 'presumably' Hastings must have been hostile and 'certain other lords' must have also had reservations 'these included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York - who previously in April had been working with Elizabeth Widville - and Bishop John Morton of Ely' Mancini again - after the Guildhall meeting Hastings, Morton and Rotherham 'were known to have' met in secret in each others' houses. 'Presumably' again ....since they objected to the removal of Edward V from the throne they were planning a campaign in the young King's defence. 'They must have felt that they needed to oppose the lord protector and the government he was leading'.JAH - The Council was split into two halves, those opposing the removal of Edward who were in the majority - and the rest. Gloucester decided to arrange two meetings where the opposing factions were to meet separately and they were to be held simultaneously.Paul Murray Kendall - One meeting took place a the Palace of Westminster the other at the Tower of London(Don't quite follow the reasoning here. Why were Richard and Buckingham with the hostile lot? That is they must have been if Rotherham, Hastings and Morton were there?) Account of a London Citizen (now dated to the sixteenth century) - 'in the mene tyme ther was dyvers imagnyd the deyth of the Duke of Gloceter, and hit as asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges ws takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith , the xiij of June Anno 1483'Continuator of the Crowland Chronicle 1486 - 'on 13 June , the sixth day of the week (Friday), when he came to the Council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded'Mancini again - 'the protector cried out that a plot had been prepared against him, and they had come with concealed weapons , so that they could make the first attack. The soldiers who had been stationed there by the lord, and the Duke of Buckingham, came running, and beheaded Hastings by the sword under the name of treason. The others they arrested, whose lives were spared out of respect for religion and holy orders'(with thanks to JAH - it is an excellent book)
So a number of things:
Only Morton and Rotherham are mentioned amongst those arrested yet we know Forster, King and Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey, were also.Other than Stallworth - 21 June we think- (JAH disproves Cely in another chapter) there is not one contemporary account. As you say Marie, Mancini was in London but this wasn't written until December, he couldn't speak English, and by this time the story had probably been enhanced by gossip. Let alone the 'audience' he was writing for - CatoThe theory that the Crowland Continuator had been high up in government just because he describes things in detail needn't necessarily have been the case - someone could have been leaning over his shoulder. It would have been dangerous to write the truth in 1486.
I know you know all these sources Marie, I thought it might save you a bit of time on here but please alter or add.
My conclusion is we virtually have to start from scratch. And I would love to know what Dorset was up to. He was the ultimate survivor. H


On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 06:16:41 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Would Richard have even needed to sack a lot of the Council? Dorset was either in sanctuary, in hiding or exile. Rivers was in custody; as were Grey and Vaughan, although whether the latter two would have been Council members I can't say. We can presume from the actions of the Council after Richard arrived in London that a majority of its' members supported him, otherwise why go to the trouble, and danger, of trying to remove him by force? Of course, after 13 June, Hastings was dead and Morton, Rotherham and King (of those likely to be on the Council) were in custody and, again presumably, I would imagine the Council passed its' recommendations in favor of the Pre-Contract on to the Three Estates. Doug Hilary wrote: Reading this again Marie, could Richard really sack a lot of the Council if they were stacked up against him, particularly bishops whom he would have respected? Humphrey of Gloucester had already run into trouble when taking on the Council. Richard could have perhaps retained the support of Bourchier, Howard and perhaps Suffolk? But the others, including Stanley and Buckingham, were up for grabs if the right incentive was offered. Hastings, who knows?What was Dorset doing at this time?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 11:53:55
stephenmlark
September/ December 1993 in fact, fully downloadable.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 12:47:09
mariewalsh2003

Doug:

Yes, I was thinking of that more formal garden area. Possibly because I associate strawberries with being planted in their own specific area, as opposed to their being gathered from, say, wherever they might be growing wild. FWIW, there's also what appears to be some sort of garden directly in front of the church/chapel and, as it's definitely outside the walls, whatever might be growing there would be visible to anyone passing.



Marie:

Yep, what you were looking at was a private formal pleasure garden (hence the very high walls). This is not where strawberries (not all that attractive with their straw bedding) or any other crop would be grown. But just because the sort of strawberries they were growing are native plants, and therefore we now refer to them as wild strawberries, does not mean they would just left to grow wild, despite their tendency to spread. As the name indicates, even back then strawberries were grown in specific spots with straw laid down around them to stop them from getting munched away or spoilt by drooping on to the soil.

Both the rows of beds in the front of the sketch (i.e. at the back of the church) and the large field behind the church (north side) were gardens of some sort belonging to Ely Place so far as I can make out, and formed part of the Hatton sale.

You'll find much more detail here than in Wikipedia:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol2/pp514-526

If you go to Google Maps you can also find the modern street names it lists as deriving from this extensive garden area.

What I would say is that, although Morton's strawberries were undoubtedly bigger than mine as they were grown further south and better looked after, to get enough of the little blighters to go round the council would require a generous amount of growing space. That's where I think the large space available for gardens around Ely Place (compared to other London addresses) was probably the factor that enabled the bishops to grow strawberries in quantities that other Londoners could only envy. So the strawberries at Holborn might have been well known.


Doug:

I don't recall having heard about strawberries symbolizing love (have to brush up my Shakespeare?).


Marie:

Every plant had its symbolic meaning, and these were not the same as the Victorian symbolisms. Everything - plants, animals, the lot - symbolised something else. You wouldn't really expect to have heard about medieval plant symbolism unless you have read about medieval gardening or the like (or, in the case of strawberries, studied Othello for exams). Try this one:-

https://web.extension.illinois.edu/strawberries/history.cfm

I still don't think whether Richard had seen Morton's strawberries is particularly important. Morton might have mentioned them. They might have been famous. There are too many other possible explanations.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 13:12:49
mariewalsh2003


Marie answers:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.


The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)


No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.


This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.










Stephen answered:


Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php

Marie: Approximately which year was it?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 September 2019 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot





Marie,
I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line?
To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it?
As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine.
My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple?
I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself?
I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure.
Doug

Marie wrote:
There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.
Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.
I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed.. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.
Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.
I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.
Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important.
P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed.. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 14:10:05
mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,


That is odd - Mancini doesn't date anything, and even complains in his introduction to Cato that his understanding of the chronology and timing of events was not good enough for a written account (and he was right).


I'm afraid this is very much JAH's own interpretation.


The meeting of 9 June doesn't come from Mancini and did not take place in the Guildhall - it is referred to in Stallworth's letter of 9 June, and had taken place at Westminster that morning. The MPs would not even have reached London that early. Incidentally, we do also use the term the Three Estates, though we call formal assemblies of the same' Parliament' and not 'the Estates General' like the French.

It is not known at all whether the precontract was broached at that meeting; Stallworthe wasn't present since he wasn't a lord. It is often suggested that it was disclosed then, and that this was what galvanised Hastings, but this is pure speculation. We simply do not have a record of when the precontract was first disclosed and the meeting could as easily have been about the impending coronation, which Stallworthe tells us was keeping everybody very busy.

.

JAH seems to have conflated the 9 June Great Council with the meeting of the Three Estates (which is an English term as well, and the proper one in this context as there had been no formal opening of parliament) on c. 23 June which decided to offer Richard the crown. Mancini has this as the 'lords' going to Baynards to take oath of allegiance to Richard, and then 'the people of London and the higher clergy" doing likewise the next day. Then he says: "All important matters are deliberated, and decrees made law by these three orders, whom they call the three estates."


Mancini doesn't have Richard makes any claim to the throne till he had got possession of RdoY and taken out Hastings (in that order). In fact, Mancini in fact says of people's feelings after Hastings' death: "Thus far, though all the evidence looked as if he coveted the crown, yet there remained some hope, because he was not yet claiming the throne. . ."


I think there are complaints in some sources (I'd need to check what they are - not Crowland) that Richard and his inner circle often met at Crosby Place without the rest of the Council. Also that Hastings and his friends were meeting in their houses - but I can't see this in Mancini.

That is a separate issue from the splitting of formal council meetings into two halves, one at the Tower (with the King, of course), and the other at Westminster. I'm not sure if it was explicitly stated anywhere - perhaps you can check, Hilary - but the prosaic explanation is that such splitting off into committees was pretty standard and that the Westminster council was organising the coronation.


The very best-considered and most authoritative timeline of events during the Protectorate is given in Hammond & Sutton's Coronation of Richard III, if you're looking for a ready-made secondary source. It's hideously expensive but you could order it from a library.


Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 14:53:37
Hilary Jones
Thanks Marie - I did think that about the MPs. Strange JAH didn't mention the later Mancini bit. I'm glad you agree (with me for once) we don't have a set date for Stillington's disclosure. And the only other quotes are from Hammond and Sutton which don't seem to gel or have a different interpreatation. I'll have a look. H
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 14:10:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,


That is odd - Mancini doesn't date anything, and even complains in his introduction to Cato that his understanding of the chronology and timing of events was not good enough for a written account (and he was right).


I'm afraid this is very much JAH's own interpretation.


The meeting of 9 June doesn't come from Mancini and did not take place in the Guildhall - it is referred to in Stallworth's letter of 9 June, and had taken place at Westminster that morning. The MPs would not even have reached London that early. Incidentally, we do also use the term the Three Estates, though we call formal assemblies of the same' Parliament' and not 'the Estates General' like the French.

It is not known at all whether the precontract was broached at that meeting; Stallworthe wasn't present since he wasn't a lord. It is often suggested that it was disclosed then, and that this was what galvanised Hastings, but this is pure speculation. We simply do not have a record of when the precontract was first disclosed and the meeting could as easily have been about the impending coronation, which Stallworthe tells us was keeping everybody very busy.

.

JAH seems to have conflated the 9 June Great Council with the meeting of the Three Estates (which is an English term as well, and the proper one in this context as there had been no formal opening of parliament) on c. 23 June which decided to offer Richard the crown. Mancini has this as the 'lords' going to Baynards to take oath of allegiance to Richard, and then 'the people of London and the higher clergy" doing likewise the next day. Then he says: "All important matters are deliberated, and decrees made law by these three orders, whom they call the three estates."


Mancini doesn't have Richard makes any claim to the throne till he had got possession of RdoY and taken out Hastings (in that order). In fact, Mancini in fact says of people's feelings after Hastings' death: "Thus far, though all the evidence looked as if he coveted the crown, yet there remained some hope, because he was not yet claiming the throne. . ."


I think there are complaints in some sources (I'd need to check what they are - not Crowland) that Richard and his inner circle often met at Crosby Place without the rest of the Council. Also that Hastings and his friends were meeting in their houses - but I can't see this in Mancini.

That is a separate issue from the splitting of formal council meetings into two halves, one at the Tower (with the King, of course), and the other at Westminster. I'm not sure if it was explicitly stated anywhere - perhaps you can check, Hilary - but the prosaic explanation is that such splitting off into committees was pretty standard and that the Westminster council was organising the coronation.


The very best-considered and most authoritative timeline of events during the Protectorate is given in Hammond & Sutton's Coronation of Richard III, if you're looking for a ready-made secondary source. It's hideously expensive but you could order it from a library.


Marie


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 15:12:54
Doug Stamate
Hilary, That's one of the reasons I'm not too fond of the Greek and Roman historians. They're good when it comes to dates and such, but then try to provide motivation(?) for those they're writing about via speeches that almost certainly are figments of the writers' imaginations. Lacking other sources, however, we can't be certain the author/s didn't have some source for those speeches  frustrating! Perhaps More was intending to satirize both the style of such histories and the Tudor legend/s? More may have dropped his writing of the History simply due to time constraints. I believe Williamson suggested in her The Mystery of the Princes that More may have gotten information, trustworthy information, that contradicted the official version and halted work for that reason. A satire of the origins of the Tudor dynasty in itself could prove dangerous enough, why run the risk of being found with documents that might result in even harsher punishment than that for lese majestie? I believe it was Marie who pointed out that it was likely that the information in the Croyland Chronicle was probably provided by more than one person/source, even if the actual chronicle itself (or the portions we're interested in anyway) may have been written/composed by one person. Considering where and when those portions of the chronicle were written, it wouldn't be surprising if the writer put on a spin that would appeal to MB and HT should they ever read it. I think Mancini is fairly good when it come to dates, but gets a bit slippery when describing what happened because his informants seem to have definitely been, if not anti-Richard, then definitely pro-Woodville. When it comes to Stallworth's letter, the main reason I believe it was likely composed just after 13 June is because leaving a decision that would remove Edward V from his throne until two days before his coronation seems to being cutting it close. If the Council was to decide, as it apparently did, that the Pre-Contract was valid, would two days, or less, be enough time to get the word out to the nobles and Members gathering in London for the ceremonies? If the period between the announcement of the Council's decision and the cancellation of Edward's coronation appeared to be too rushed, it'd likely lead to confusion and/or resistance. FWIW, I differentiate between informing any nobles and Members that may have already been in London from an actual public announcement accompanied by a proclamation. Buckingham addressed the Mayor and Aldermen, I believe, before the Three Estates met and of course there was that sermon of Shaa's. However, other than that, I don't know if there was any general announcement of what was going on. Leaving a open field for Mancini's informants. Doug Hilary wrote: I agree Doug. More was a scholar of Tacitus who has heroes and villains, nothing in between. There are some who think it's a sort of historical exercise; him having a go at writing like Tacitus - the sort a lecturer would set today - you know, write me a poem in the style of Emily Dickinson (which my daughter once had to do). Another question around More is why he wrote it unless as an exercise or a satire. You see he certainly hadn't got on with HT, he only just avoided an earlier chop, so why would he glamorise him and why remind Henry VIII of the way his family got the Crown? And of course it was never finished. Then we have Croyland, written in 1486 I recall? It's so detailed (so scholars say) that it must have been written by someone who was there. But could it not also have been written by someone who liked a good story and who wanted to please MB and HT - remember MB's association with Croyland? And then Mancini, who picked up London gossip and couldn't speak English. I reckon all we really have to go on are those few words from Stalworth?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 15:14:59
Doug Stamate
Thank you!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php"



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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 15:25:36
Doug Stamate

Marie,

I didn't think it was the same as those cartloads of arms, but I wasn't certain, so thank you for setting that question to rest!

Apparently between Mancini (!) and Carson, my idea of an attack as Richard and Buckingham were leaving the Tower building itself is a no-go. Oh well, not the first time I've had to change my thinking...

I've read Stephen's posts and will go after the article this weekend.

Doug

Marie wrote:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.

The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)


No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.


This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.


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

FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-11 15:50:05
Stephen

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 13:17
To:
Subject: RE: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Marie answers:

Wendy's article is in two parts, vol 9, nos 122 & 123. Unfortunately it is not available to download, and that will only mean that Anne Sutton hasn't succeeded in getting Wendy's permission so no point moaning to the Society about it.

The hidden arms claim is in Mancini:-

". . . the Protector cried out by arrangement that a trap had been prepared for him, and they had come with hidden arms in order to be first to begin the assault. Then knights who had been set there by the Lord ran in with the Duke of Buckingham, and cut down Hastings by the sword under the false name of treason. They spared the rest, out of respect for their religion and priesthood as it is considered.

(that's my translation, not Armstrong's although it comes to the same thing)

No, these are not the displayed weapons you're thinking of - those were the ones (cartloads of them, with the Woodville arms on the carts) that had been confiscated from Rivers' party at Stony Stratford. There's no suggestion that the few weapons that (if Mancini is correct) were seized in the Tower were ever displayed. There would have been no way of demonstrating to the crowds who they had belonged to, in any case.

This is a quotation from Annette's book:

"Whatever happened, the attempted attack (or exposure of conspiracy) took place in front of witnesses.221 This invited precisely such treason charges as could be brought expeditiously before the High Constable."

Annette indicates that summary courts under the Law of Arms were generally only used for cases such as men taken in battle, displaying treasonable banners or the like. You'd really need to read the book yourself, but the impression I have is that such a summary trial would only have been acceptable if they'd been caught pretty much red-handed. This would also be the most logical explanation for the arrests having taken place during the council meeting rather than Richard having sent soldiers to some other meeting of the conspirators to arrest them in a situation that did not put himself at personal risk.

Stephen answered:

Wendy's article will be accessible online via this index:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php

Marie: Approximately which year was it?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 September 2019 05:15
To:
Subject: Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot





Marie,
I've got Carson's book/let on my to buy list; is Moorhen's article accessible on-line?
To be honest, I don't think I'd heard about that particular batch of stashed weapons before! It isn't the same batch that were later claimed by some to have been placed wherever in order to arm troops against the Scots, is it?
As I said, I haven't gotten Carson's book yet, but it was my understanding from posts here on the Forum that even without a scuffle a plot against the Lord Constable was treason, punishable by death and that the Lord Constable had the necessary authority to try, condemn and execute someone found guilty of such a crime. It couldn't have been done solely on Richard's accusation, however, so there must have been some evidence. An actual attempt would certainly provide it, or so I'd imagine.
My major problem with seeing what happened to Hastings as having been any sort of set up, even by Buckingham, is probably because it complicates an otherwise fairly simply situation in which a group of highly-placed, important people are faced with the possibility of losing, if not everything, then almost everything and decided to simplify matters by removing Richard. Then again, what is there about any of this that's been simple?
I suppose warnings could have come to Richard from Catesby via Buckingham, with Buckingham holding onto the information until it was too late for Hastings to back out or, more likely, before Hastings had sufficiently compromised himself?
I've never been in the Tower and have absolutely no idea how suitable the interior of it would be for an ambush/attack. My idea was that extra men would be brought into the Tower grounds, kept in the proximity of the Mint and then attack Richard and Buckingham as they left the Tower itself. The various photos and plans I have seen suggests it was possible, although success would depend entirely on large the group of attackers was. Success would depend, of course, on just how many men accompanied Richard and Buckingham to the Tower and might also be waiting outside for their departure.
Doug

Marie wrote:
There's too much we don't know about the Hastings affair, and we need to be honest about that, I think. What I need to do on this, when I get a minute, is what \I've done with some other contentious events and make a Word file with the relevant extracts from all the early sources that make reference to it, set out in chronological order in order to show the development of the story.
Two useful modern works for this event in the meantime would be an article that Wendy Moorhen had published in the Ricardian some years ago, and Annette Carson's booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.
I think the conclusion was that the sort of trial and condemnation that is described by all but Mancini indicates that Richard was acting under his powers as Lord Constable, and that those arrested must have been caught red-handed.. This supports the claims (made in which sources I cannot recall offhand, which is one reason a dedicated file is needed) that weapons were found stashed nearby ready for use. The fact that there seems to have been an armed scuffle rather than simple arrests actually suggests the plotters may have got as far as accessing those weapons, and were only prevented from succeeding with their plan because Richard had been forewarned and had his own armed men hidden waiting to step in and protect him.
Personally, I think that, if anyone was setting Hastings up for a fall, it would have been Buckingham. Mancini even believed the armed men who came in on Richard's side were Buckingham's, or under Buckingham's command at any rate (although the name given in Vergil's unpublished MS are those of Richard's men). Rous even says that Richard executed Hastings and his imprisoned Morton and Rotherham ad haec maxime desudante Henrico duce Bukkynghamiae  being most greatly egged on in these matters by Henry Duke of Buckingham. Catesby had professional links with Buckingham.
I really don't think it was Hastings' fellow plotters who were setting him up, it would have been like plotting to destroy Theresa May now Boris is PM. And, yes, I imagine the fount of the plot was the Queen, or perhaps the Queen and Dorset together.
Regarding an earlier suggestion that Hastings as Master of the Mint might have been useful in getting people into the Tower. That certainly looks like an aspect of the late-July Tower plot, but the problem was (and perhaps this was one reason why said plot failed) that as I understand it the Mint was housed in the outer circle of the Tower, which was a fairly public area anyway, so didn't provide easy access into the main body of the fortress, still less the royal apartments. Hastings' role as Captain of Calais ad his effective control of much of the Midlands would, I think, have been at least as important.
P.S. So many sources say Hastings was beheaded that I think it is not just a later slur. Mancini may have been mistaken. The only way to square the two versions would be if Buckingham had made sure Hastings died in the scuffle, and then told Richard that it would look bad for him to admit this was what happened, and that he should put it out that Hastings had been properly condemned and executed.. Such a version would, ironically, have suited the Tudor writers as it was too hasty for proper form and made Richard look tyrannical. I guess we'll never know for sure.


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

Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-11 16:13:11
mariewalsh2003

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.


Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-11 17:01:10
Stephen

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-11 18:35:16
mariewalsh2003

Ah, They must have left the old index up as well, which has links to some of the articles.

So I was looking at the wrong thing!


Thank you.

Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-11 19:23:54
Stephen

Indeed, everything up to 2010 is included  not us yet.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 18:36
To:
Subject: RE: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Ah, They must have left the old index up as well, which has links to some of the articles.

So I was looking at the wrong thing!

Thank you.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 12:39:11
Nicholas Brown
Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Thomas Beaumond - (Salter and Sheriff of the City of London, 1454). Bequests to Guild of Corpus Christi, All Hallows Breadstread and other charities. Prayers for his late wives both named Alice, parents, friends and people from Oxford University for 7 years. From Watlington.
I can't be sure whether Henry, Robert and Thomas the woolmonger fit in. The tapicer, John Bonauntre and John Beamond the Chandler both owned land in Essex and they both lived in the same part of London. I can't be sure if Thomas the Salter is part of the same family. He is interesting because of the bequests to Oxford University as Thomas Beaumont, the Arch Deacon went to Oxford. Did you find anything that connects the families because only Thomas the Salter has known connections to Oxfordshire?

Given the dates and the fact that Thomas Beaumont, the archdeacon was born around 1463, if this is one family, I would guess that John the Chandler could be the brother or son of John Bonauntre, but uses a different spelling of the name. Thomas the woolmonger may be another brother or son. Subsequent generations of Beaumonds would likely descend from Thomas the tapicer's sons William and John (sr and jr) and/or John Beamond the chandler's son Adam or his 'kinsmen' Richard (the pinner) or John Adam, Richard and Jon arepossibly the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumond's father.

Nico






I



On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 17:01:45 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 13:14:00
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, I'll come back on the rest of this later but I forgot I can't attach things on this forum. If you write to me direct with your email address I'll attach it. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 12:39:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Thomas Beaumond - (Salter and Sheriff of the City of London, 1454). Bequests to Guild of Corpus Christi, All Hallows Breadstread and other charities. Prayers for his late wives both named Alice, parents, friends and people from Oxford University for 7 years. From Watlington.
I can't be sure whether Henry, Robert and Thomas the woolmonger fit in. The tapicer, John Bonauntre and John Beamond the Chandler both owned land in Essex and they both lived in the same part of London. I can't be sure if Thomas the Salter is part of the same family. He is interesting because of the bequests to Oxford University as Thomas Beaumont, the Arch Deacon went to Oxford. Did you find anything that connects the families because only Thomas the Salter has known connections to Oxfordshire?

Given the dates and the fact that Thomas Beaumont, the archdeacon was born around 1463, if this is one family, I would guess that John the Chandler could be the brother or son of John Bonauntre, but uses a different spelling of the name. Thomas the woolmonger may be another brother or son. Subsequent generations of Beaumonds would likely descend from Thomas the tapicer's sons William and John (sr and jr) and/or John Beamond the chandler's son Adam or his 'kinsmen' Richard (the pinner) or John Adam, Richard and Jon arepossibly the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumond's father.

Nico






I



On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 17:01:45 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 16:36:17
Nicholas Brown
Thanks Hilary, my email address is nico11238@... Nico

On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 13:14:06 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, I'll come back on the rest of this later but I forgot I can't attach things on this forum. If you write to me direct with your email address I'll attach it. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 12:39:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Thomas Beaumond - (Salter and Sheriff of the City of London, 1454). Bequests to Guild of Corpus Christi, All Hallows Breadstread and other charities. Prayers for his late wives both named Alice, parents, friends and people from Oxford University for 7 years. From Watlington.
I can't be sure whether Henry, Robert and Thomas the woolmonger fit in. The tapicer, John Bonauntre and John Beamond the Chandler both owned land in Essex and they both lived in the same part of London. I can't be sure if Thomas the Salter is part of the same family. He is interesting because of the bequests to Oxford University as Thomas Beaumont, the Arch Deacon went to Oxford. Did you find anything that connects the families because only Thomas the Salter has known connections to Oxfordshire?

Given the dates and the fact that Thomas Beaumont, the archdeacon was born around 1463, if this is one family, I would guess that John the Chandler could be the brother or son of John Bonauntre, but uses a different spelling of the name. Thomas the woolmonger may be another brother or son. Subsequent generations of Beaumonds would likely descend from Thomas the tapicer's sons William and John (sr and jr) and/or John Beamond the chandler's son Adam or his 'kinsmen' Richard (the pinner) or John Adam, Richard and Jon arepossibly the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumond's father.

Nico






I



On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 17:01:45 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 17:07:12
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, I wonder if any involvement of MB wasn't initiated by EW? Prior to the Tower Plot, seemingly the plan was to crown young Edward, remake the Council and either do completely away with the office of Protector or, if the Council jibbed at that, so hobble the position as to make it impotent. If Dorset's (?) remark about being the Woodvilles being all-powerful is an accurate reflection of the general Woodville attitude, it looks to me as if the Woodville party expected to have things their own way  at least until Richard intervened at Northampton. If MB was giving EW any advice during this period, I agree it would likely have been to go the political route. What do you think of the idea that it might have been during this period, when a definite majority on the Council was being sought by EW and her party, that the idea of Elizabeth marrying HT was raised? And by EW? Or, if not during the period before the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council, then during the period before the Council had made any official decision? One would think that surely EW would have been scrambling like mad trying to garner as many supporters as possible in order to keep her son on the throne. I wonder how much Stanley's opposition to accepting the Pre-Contract would have influenced others on the Council? If I remember my Scottish history correctly, it was during the 15th century that the Archbishoprics of St. Andrews and Glasgow were established, with the King having the right of nomination for those posts. I'm not certain if or how the dioceses were subordinated to the Archbishops, but I'd imagine the two senior clerics would have some authority over the bishops? Re the Attorney General's conscience; I tend to think it was more that than any sense of, say, revenge that lead to the Pre-Contract being brought before the Council. Now, whether it was Stillington's conscience or someone else's, I can't say for certain, although I tend toward it being some one other than the good Bishop (always open to change with the receipt of further information, though). Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, we agree:) :) I think during MB's visits to sooth EW she might have suggested the political solution of getting the Council more on side. I don't think she had any part in plotting an assassination of Richard or her nephew; that isn't MB. Re Morton, having watched the Neil Oliver programme on Scotland, I wonder whether Morton had bumped into any Scottish bishops or ambassadors at the French Court? France and Scotland were long-term allies and Morton was in France for a long time. If he had, he would know that Scottish bishops' allegiances were direct to the Pope and they could actually get sanction from him to remove a king they thought ineffective (or not of their choosing). This could arguably have given Morton delusions of grandeur, what if English bishops could do the same, that would be a marvellous solution. It would be the Church who literally anointed the sovereign, not the sovereign endorsing them. It's a thought. I don't often mention UK politics but as you know there is turmoil at the moment. Last night I happened to tune in to a former Attorney General addressing the House about (to put it briefly) something secret which was vital to the nation which had been brought to his notice and which his conscience told him he had to reveal. And it so reminded me of Stillington. You see I've formerly been quite scathing about his revelation because of his conscience but if his revelation was conducted in the same way as the guy last night I can quite see how he won over the Council. It was almost like watching a replay of a similar happening of over five hundred years' ago- albeit not the same subject.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 17:58:40
Doug Stamate

Marie,

Ah, so once Edward had been crowned he, or his relatives, could over-rule the Council, even without remaking it! OTOH, and what actually happened, was that Richard's position as Protector was confirmed by the Council pending a vote in the Parliament that was to be called to meet after Edward's coronation?

It rather looks as if the Woodvilles presumed that, should the Council agree to Richard ever assumed the position of Protector (even for the short period between that confirmation and the meeting of Parliament after Edward's coronation), it was likely that Parliament would follow the Council's lead and confirm him as Protector. Sort of looks as if the Woodvilles knew exactly where they stood with the majority of the political nation, doesn't it?

Might Edward's apparent absence on 13 June have been because he, or rather his legitimacy, was going to be decided at that meeting?

Doug

Marie wrote:

I'm afraid that isn't what the sources tell us.

The Woodville faction did not feel bound by Edward's desire for his brother to be Protector at all - they weren't relying on numbers in council, or the young Edward V, to 'hobble' him. The Protector had specific powers, in any case, for the defence of the King and the realm.

The point about a protectorate was that, albeit the powers of a protector were much more limited than those of a regent and he had to govern in cooperation with other council members, it was a recognition of the fact that the King was unable to rule in his own right. Edward V's presence in Council during a protectorate would, therefore, not of itself have made any difference.

The Woodvilles' actual policy was to rely on the precedent set in the 1420s, when it was ruled by parliament that (a) the late king's wishes could not bind people's actions after his death, and (b) it was incompatible with the royal dignity to have a protector once the king had been crowned.

So, in order to ensure that Richard would not be Protector, they aimed to get Edward crowned as soon as possible, and the date they had set for the coronation was 4 May. This is confirmed by the letter written (ostensibly) by King Edward himself and received by the Mayor and Council of King's Lynn on 24 April. I quote from it: (in modern spelling-

" And, where it hath pleased Him [God] to ordain and provid we us to succeed and inherit my said lord and father in the pre-eminence and dignity royal of the crowns of England and France, we intend, by Him that sendeth all power, . . . so to govern, rule and protect this our realm of England as shall be to His pleasure, our honour and the well and surety of all our subjects in the same, and to be at our city of London in all convenient haste, by God's grace, to be crowned at Westminster. . . . not failing to execute our commandment and your authority in that behalf for favour or doubt of any person, what estate or degree he be of, . . ."

I have emboldened particularly important words and phrases, which as you can see confirm the Woodville intention for an immediate coronation following which Edward will rule in his own right, his powers to include the protection of the realm, Opposition from a highly placed individual or individuals is anticipated in the last phrase.

That was Plan A, and seems to me to be unarguable given the evidence. Richard's plan to meet Rivers and the King on their way south in therefore a very serious problem for the Woodvilles. Richard's claim, when he reached London, was that the Woodvilles had attempted to ambush and kill him. The Tudor tradition, on the other hand, claims the Woodvilles had no concerns about Richard and he was simply a villain paving his own way to the throne. You pays your money, as they say. For me, the Woodvilles' stated aims certainly provide more than adequate motive for an attempt on their part to either kill or imprison Richard to prevent him reaching London and effecting a delay in the hasty coronation the purpose of which he very well knew.

I agree that Friday 13th was a Plan C (or perhaps B  I'm not sure whether dashing into sanctuary counts as a plan). Where Edward V sat (literally) in it all, I don't know. He must have attended council meetings at the Tower in order to prepare him for governance when he was a bit older, and we know he was signing documents by the advice of his uncle and the Council etc. Did he attend the meeting of Friday 13th? If not, why not? If did, why is his presence not mentioned by any source at all?

It seems to me that Richard would not have the king at the meeting if he knew things were going to turn nasty, and (assuming the plot was genuine) the plotters wouldn't have wanted him there either. So his apparent absence from that particular meeting may have been unusual.


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

Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-12 18:16:37
Doug Stamate
Stephen, I tried that link and it took me to: http://www.thericardian..online/the_ricardian.php but it says This site can't be reached However, this link was provided: https://www.google.com/search?q=thericardian%20online%20ricardian which listed several links. I followed the first link given: http://www.richardiii.net/6_3_1_the_ricardian_archive.php and, by clicking on the Ricardian Online link in the upper right corner was led to: http://www.thericardian.online/ which has a link, again in the upper right corner: http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php On the left-hand side of the page is a list of dates and one can click on Index: Vol IX 91-94 which leads to this link: http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php#1991 Scrolling down down leads to these two links: http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/9-122/03.pdf and http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/9-123/03.pdf The last two links are to the articles. I have no idea why I couldn't use the route you provided unless maybe it's because I have Windows 7? Doug Stephen wrote:Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian..online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-12 19:13:49
mariewalsh2003

Doug wrote:

Ah, so once Edward had been crowned he, or his relatives, could over-rule the Council, even without remaking it! OTOH, and what actually happened, was that Richard's position as Protector was confirmed by the Council pending a vote in the Parliament that was to be called to meet after Edward's coronation?



Marie replies:

Yes. And the dangerous thing for the Woodvilles is that the plan was to ask parliament to go further than it had in the 1420s and not only ratify Richard's past tenure of the office, but allow him to retain it, even though Edward had now been crowned, until the king had reached years of discretion. We know this was what was planned because the opening address that Russell had planned to give that parliament survives, and this is what it is arguing for.


Doug wrote:

It rather looks as if the Woodvilles presumed that, should the Council agree to Richard ever assumed the position of Protector (even for the short period between that confirmation and the meeting of Parliament after Edward's coronation), it was likely that Parliament would follow the Council's lead and confirm him as Protector. Sort of looks as if the Woodvilles knew exactly where they stood with the majority of the political nation, doesn't it?


Marie:

I agree. The Woodvilles really do not seem to have been the more popular political party at this time. Richard's claim to steer the ship of state during Edward's minority, as Edward's closest male relative of the Blood Royal (as well as the late king's preferred choice), was seen as inherently more legitimate than the claims of the boy's mother. In addition, Richard was seen at that time as more honest and competent than the Woodvilles.

In France things might have been looked at differently, but this was the way things had been done in the past in the most recent English minorities, and so was the course the English felt in their guts to be constitutionally correct. Crowland understands this.

I think we can see the way that particular parliament would have voted regarding the prolongation of Richard's powers from the fact that it proved so easy, in the event, to get its members - or as many of them as had reached the capital - to petition Richard to take the throne.

So the way I see it is that the Friday 13th plot would have been an attempt to thwart parliament, and it was the need to take Richard out of the equation before parliament opened - which was only 9 days off, I think (and the coronation only 6 days off) that necessitated what was probably an over-hasty plan.

Perhaps, if the Woodvilles had recovered power that Friday, the writs for parliament would even have been cancelled, who knows.

Plus ca change - it's Friday 13th again tomorrow.









Re: FW: [Richard III Society Forum] June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plo

2019-09-12 19:16:09
Stephen
I don't know why that is, but you can download all articles to 2010 can be downloaded. I suggested making the Index sortable by author but that idea wasn't approved.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 12 September 2019 18:16
To:
Subject: RE: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

 
 
 
 
Stephen,
I tried that link and it took me to:
http://www.thericardian..online/the_ricardian.php
but it says This site can't be reached
However, this link was provided:
https://www.google.com/search?q=thericardian%20online%20ricardian
which listed several links.
I followed the first link given:
http://www.richardiii.net/6_3_1_the_ricardian_archive.php
and, by clicking on the Ricardian Online link in the upper right corner was led to:
http://www.thericardian.online/
which has a link, again in the upper right corner:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
On the left-hand side of the page is a list of dates and one can click on Index: Vol IX 91-94 which leads to this link:
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php#1991
Scrolling down down leads to these two links:
http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/9-122/03.pdf and
http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/9-123/03.pdf
 
The last two links are to the articles. I have no idea why I couldn't use the route you provided unless maybe it's because I have Windows 7?
Doug
 
Stephen wrote:
Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:
http://www.thericardian..online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)
Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497
 
 

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




Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-14 04:23:03
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I don't have much of anything to add, except perhaps that the reason for only Morton and Rotherham being mentioned was that they were national figures? It could be expected that someone knew who the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ely were, but to also know someone who was the Queen's Treasurer  not so much. Doug Who apologizes for the delay in replying! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug (and Marie if this helps a bit to save you looking up sources) I've looked at JAH 'The Mythology of the Princes' chapter 'What did Lord Hastings do?'. He doesn't really give us any answers but the chronology/interpretation is interesting. Firstly, he has hostility between Hastings and EW, Rivers and particularly Dorset. He has him on friendly terms with Richard, but not that close - he didn't ride out to meet him or the young King. And he has him in agreement with Edward V being king as long as the Woodvilles are kept in the background. Mancini (written in December 1483) 9th June - Meeting at the Guildhall of the 'Three Estates' (I take it by this he means the Commons and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal - Three Estates is the French term for this). Stillington announces the impediment to Edward's kingship. Then follows JAH's interpretation which is that 'presumably' Hastings must have been hostile and 'certain other lords' must have also had reservations 'these included Archbishop Thomas Rotherham of York - who previously in April had been working with Elizabeth Widville - and Bishop John Morton of Ely' Mancini again - after the Guildhall meeting Hastings, Morton and Rotherham 'were known to have' met in secret in each others' houses. 'Presumably' again ....since they objected to the removal of Edward V from the throne they were planning a campaign in the young King's defence. 'They must have felt that they needed to oppose the lord protector and the government he was leading'. JAH - The Council was split into two halves, those opposing the removal of Edward who were in the majority - and the rest. Gloucester decided to arrange two meetings where the opposing factions were to meet separately and they were to be held simultaneously. Paul Murray Kendall - One meeting took place a the Palace of Westminster the other at the Tower of London (Don't quite follow the reasoning here. Why were Richard and Buckingham with the hostile lot? That is they must have been if Rotherham, Hastings and Morton were there?) Account of a London Citizen (now dated to the sixteenth century) - 'in the mene tyme ther was dyvers imagnyd the deyth of the Duke of Gloceter, and hit as asspiyd and the Lord Hastinges ws takyn in the Towur and byhedyd forthwith , the xiij of June Anno 1483' Continuator of the Crowland Chronicle 1486 - 'on 13 June , the sixth day of the week (Friday), when he came to the Council in the Tower, on the authority of the protector, Lord Hastings was beheaded' Mancini again - 'the protector cried out that a plot had been prepared against him, and they had come with concealed weapons , so that they could make the first attack. The soldiers who had been stationed there by the lord, and the Duke of Buckingham, came running, and beheaded Hastings by the sword under the name of treason. The others they arrested, whose lives were spared out of respect for religion and holy orders' (with thanks to JAH - it is an excellent book) So a number of things: Only Morton and Rotherham are mentioned amongst those arrested yet we know Forster, King and Burton, Prior of St Mary Overey, were also. Other than Stallworth - 21 June we think- (JAH disproves Cely in another chapter) there is not one contemporary account. As you say Marie, Mancini was in London but this wasn't written until December, he couldn't speak English, and by this time the story had probably been enhanced by gossip. Let alone the 'audience' he was writing for  Cato The theory that the Crowland Continuator had been high up in government just because he describes things in detail needn't necessarily have been the case - someone could have been leaning over his shoulder. It would have been dangerous to write the truth in 1486. I know you know all these sources Marie, I thought it might save you a bit of time on here but please alter or add. My conclusion is we virtually have to start from scratch. And I would love to know what Dorset was up to. He was the ultimate survivor.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-14 04:51:44
Doug Stamate

Marie,

The two links were very informative, thank you! The wild strawberries in my yard are only about the size of a large pea and hard as a rock, but I suppose if they were being tended the fruit might get a bit bigger  bean-sized perhaps? Hopefully the taste improved with the size!

Seemingly, Shakespeare got much of his information for his Richard III (1593 or thereabouts) from Holinshed, first published in 1577 and and then again in 1587. So, if there is anything in the strawberry story, I guess we'd need to know where Holinshed got his information? As you say, it's likely nothing, but I find myself extremely leery of accepting at face value anything concerning Morton!

Doug

Marie wrote:

Yep, what you were looking at was a private formal pleasure garden (hence the very high walls). This is not where strawberries (not all that attractive with their straw bedding) or any other crop would be grown. But just because the sort of strawberries they were growing are native plants, and therefore we now refer to them as wild strawberries, does not mean they would just left to grow wild, despite their tendency to spread. As the name indicates, even back then strawberries were grown in specific spots with straw laid down around them to stop them from getting munched away or spoilt by drooping on to the soil.

Both the rows of beds in the front of the sketch (i.e. at the back of the church) and the large field behind the church (north side) were gardens of some sort belonging to Ely Place so far as I can make out, and formed part of the Hatton sale.

You'll find much more detail here than in Wikipedia:

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/old-new-london/vol2/pp514-526

If you go to Google Maps you can also find the modern street names it lists as deriving from this extensive garden area.

What I would say is that, although Morton's strawberries were undoubtedly bigger than mine as they were grown further south and better looked after, to get enough of the little blighters to go round the council would require a generous amount of growing space. That's where I think the large space available for gardens around Ely Place (compared to other London addresses) was probably the factor that enabled the bishops to grow strawberries in quantities that other Londoners could only envy. So the strawberries at Holborn might have been well known.

Doug:

I don't recall having heard about strawberries symbolizing love (have to brush up my Shakespeare?).


Marie:

Every plant had its symbolic meaning, and these were not the same as the Victorian symbolisms. Everything - plants, animals, the lot - symbolised something else. You wouldn't really expect to have heard about medieval plant symbolism unless you have read about medieval gardening or the like (or, in the case of strawberries, studied Othello for exams). Try this one:-

https://web.extension.illinois.edu/strawberries/history.cfm

I still don't think whether Richard had seen Morton's strawberries is particularly important. Morton might have mentioned them. They might have been famous. There are too many other possible explanations.


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-14 05:15:26
Doug Stamate
Marie, Well, if Russell was preparing speech for Parliament favoring extending the Protectorate during Edward's minority, then it's not unreasonable to think the Woodvilles would know it as well. There'd also likely be at least some lobbying of those already in London in order to determine support for the measure, as well. Which would also likely get back to the Woodvilles. Then to have the Pre-Contract dropped on them! So what we have is, I think, two plots? The first is the Stony Stratford plot with its' aim of preventing Richard from even assuming the role of Protector. The second would have been any plotting to designed to remove Richard as Protector and thus prevent Parliament from having a chance to extend the Protectorate through Edward's minority. Then further impetus would have been added to any plotting already underway when the Pre-Contract was brought before the Council. No wonder the Woodvilles panicked! Doug Marie wrote:  Yes. And the dangerous thing for the Woodvilles is that the plan was to ask parliament to go further than it had in the 1420s and not only ratify Richard's past tenure of the office, but allow him to retain it, even though Edward had now been crowned, until the king had reached years of discretion. We know this was what was planned because the opening address that Russell had planned to give that parliament survives, and this is what it is arguing for. I agree. The Woodvilles really do not seem to have been the more popular political party at this time. Richard's claim to steer the ship of state during Edward's minority, as Edward's closest male relative of the Blood Royal (as well as the late king's preferred choice), was seen as inherently more legitimate than the claims of the boy's mother. In addition, Richard was seen at that time as more honest and competent than the Woodvilles. In France things might have been looked at differently, but this was the way things had been done in the past in the most recent English minorities, and so was the course the English felt in their guts to be constitutionally correct. Crowland understands this. I think we can see the way that particular parliament would have voted regarding the prolongation of Richard's powers from the fact that it proved so easy, in the event, to get its members - or as many of them as had reached the capital - to petition Richard to take the throne. So the way I see it is that the Friday 13th plot would have been an attempt to thwart parliament, and it was the need to take Richard out of the equation before parliament opened - which was only 9 days off, I think (and the coronation only 6 days off) that necessitated what was probably an over-hasty plan. Perhaps, if the Woodvilles had recovered power that Friday, the writs for parliament would even have been cancelled, who knows. Plus ca change - it's Friday 13th again tomorrow.


--
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: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-14 08:46:38
Hilary Jones
Sorry just found this Marie. I agree. I was thinking he must have done something to get that close to HT in the first place; which in my books could have been double dealing with the French and via them HT. That is well before HT became king. He was in quite a unique position as Edward's secretary. There wasn't much he didn't know. H
On Monday, 9 September 2019, 13:23:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I know he wasn't then but he was one of HT's great friends from his accession. Now to be that you had to qualify, like Daubeny or Uncle Jasper. He only had half a dozen all his life. And look how he supported King over the refurbishment of the Bishop's Palace. Clearly PW and his supporters knew of him.


Marie:

Yes, absolutely there was a lot of trust there. But, just to replace the goalposts, we have no evidence he was a spy. In fact, someone so well recognised and such good friends with Henry would have been useless as a spy because nobody would ever say anything incriminating in his presence.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-17 11:57:22
Hilary Jones
Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information.
Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops.
Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard.
I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son.
I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will.
BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 16:36:44 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary, my email address is nico11238@... Nico

On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 13:14:06 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, I'll come back on the rest of this later but I forgot I can't attach things on this forum. If you write to me direct with your email address I'll attach it. H
On Thursday, 12 September 2019, 12:39:18 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, Richard was Thomas's kinsman, Thomas seems to have had two wives called Alice but no children who survived him. I can send you Thomas's PCC will and copy the London ones for you. I'll do that a bit later.
John (Chandler) Beaumond had five children - Richard, Adam, Juliana, Dionysia and Margaret. Richard seems to have died childless on 9 July 1425 and left a will. Adam we don't hear of again so Richard (Pinner) could have been his son. John (Chandler) had 'kinsmen' (I would think brothers and sisters) Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard. I think Salter Thomas must have been Richard's son. Robert (Clerk) who I found in AALT was almost certainly his brother as they both come from St Mary Colechurch.

Thomas (Tapicer) Bonauntre who left a will on 13 Apr 1394 is almost certainly John (Chandler's) brother as John is his executor and they both hail from St Dionysius Backchurch. He had three sons, William (Tapicer), John(Tapicer) and John. John the Younger (Brewer). John the elder died after 1438 and the younger after Oct 1442.
Richard (Pinner) the elder almost certainly had a son William who was a Pinner, as well as Richard the younger who became a warden of the Guild and is last seen in 1510.
As well as Thomas the woolmonger (who I'll have to revisit) there's John (Woolmonger) of Watlington, Pyrton and Clayton who died after 20 Jan 1390. He is another alternative for both John (Chandler) and Thomas (Salter)'s father.
I haven't forgotten the Wilsfords. I do think we are creeping there.

Hi Hilary,

I just found the archive.org online version of the London Wills from the Court of Hustings and it is quite fascinating. I wish I had seen it sooner. The Beamonds/Beaumonds/Beaumonts/Bonauntres that I found are as follows. I don't have the PCC will of Thomas the Salter, but I would be interested to see it if you have it. I haven't had time to have a good look at the AALT yet.

Henry Beaumond  received an unspecified pecuniary bequest in the will of Margaret Merk. (1349). She also left money to St. Mary's Church Watford.

Robert Beaumont  executor of the will of Simon Worstede (1364)

John Bonauntre (Tapicer, 1394) Buried at St. Dionisius de Bakchirche. Prayers for parents William and John. Wife Matilda and sons William, John (sr) and John (jr). Held lands in Barking, Essex

Thomas Beaumond  woolmonger (1407)  left a brewery to someone named John Russell.

John Beamond - (Chandler, 1416) Buried at St. Benedict Gracechurch Street, held property in Southwelde, Essex/Blakamore Priory. The bulk of the will went to his wife Margaret, sons Adam and Richard, daughters Juliana (married to grocer William Middleton), Dionysia and Margaret; Also pecuniary bequests to kinsfolk' Johanna, her brother John and Richard.

Thomas Beaumond - (Salter and Sheriff of the City of London, 1454). Bequests to Guild of Corpus Christi, All Hallows Breadstread and other charities. Prayers for his late wives both named Alice, parents, friends and people from Oxford University for 7 years. From Watlington.
I can't be sure whether Henry, Robert and Thomas the woolmonger fit in. The tapicer, John Bonauntre and John Beamond the Chandler both owned land in Essex and they both lived in the same part of London. I can't be sure if Thomas the Salter is part of the same family. He is interesting because of the bequests to Oxford University as Thomas Beaumont, the Arch Deacon went to Oxford.. Did you find anything that connects the families because only Thomas the Salter has known connections to Oxfordshire?

Given the dates and the fact that Thomas Beaumont, the archdeacon was born around 1463, if this is one family, I would guess that John the Chandler could be the brother or son of John Bonauntre, but uses a different spelling of the name. Thomas the woolmonger may be another brother or son. Subsequent generations of Beaumonds would likely descend from Thomas the tapicer's sons William and John (sr and jr) and/or John Beamond the chandler's son Adam or his 'kinsmen' Richard (the pinner) or John Adam, Richard and Jon arepossibly the right age group to be Thomas and Margaret Beaumond's father.

Nico






I



On Wednesday, 11 September 2019, 17:01:45 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, they do unless I am very much mistaken:

http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php
William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 1 (Sept 1993)

William Lord Hastings and the Crisis of 1483: An Assessment. Part 2 (Dec 1993)

Vol.9,pp.446-466, 482-497

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 11 September 2019 16:21
To:
Subject: Re: FW: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

Stephen wrote:

Au contraire, it is available to download  see 1993 on the index.

Marie answers:

I agree it's on the index, as the index is a complete list of the articles published in the time period; but unless I'm missing something you can only download the ones with the pdf sign next to the title.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-17 12:30:00
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops.
Marie replies:You'll come across Cosyn's name in connection with kitting out anyone who was being kept at the Kings expense (including Richard in his childhood) because he was the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe. He wasn't one of Henry's attendants.King Henry's keepers, who received their final salary payments after his death, were Robert Radcliff and William Sayer, both esquires.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-17 12:38:10
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote (re Oliver King):

Sorry just found this Marie. I agree. I was thinking he must have done something to get that close to HT in the first place; which in my books could have been double dealing with the French and via them HT. That is well before HT became king. He was in quite a unique position as Edward's secretary. There wasn't much he didn't know.



Marie replies:


Sorry, been away for a few days in Wales with no internet access or phone signal.

We shouldn't push this spying thing too far, I think. King was not Edward's general secretary, only his secretary in the French language (thanks to the years he had spent studying in France). So his role would have been confined to diplomatic correspondence and any interstate spying in which Edward engaged, which something tells me probably wasn't very much.

Anyhow, I wouldn't have though top-secret correspondence would have gone through the Secretary. We never think of John Kendall as a spy, do we?


But King was also employed on diplomatic missions to French-speaking areas, including Brittany, and that may explain the roots of the relationship of trust he enjoyed with HVII.

Henry's dislike of Stillington is usually put down to "Dr. Stillington" having been (according to Hall) the person sent over to bring Tudor back to England in the 1470s, but ironically that person in real life was almost certainly Dr. King, who really was a future - rather than the present - Bishop of Bath at the time, as King had been sent on the previous mission to Brittany which laid the groundwork for the handover (sadly, we don't have a record of the mission to bring Tudor back); and, far from hating King, Tudor thought really well of him.

So maybe the two got to know each other when Henry was in Brittany, and Henry had come to trust him then.

In fact, if one were being conspiracy-minded, is it possible that Henry managed to get himself into sanctuary with King's connivance?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-17 18:35:03
Hilary Jones
Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 12:25 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Hilary wrote:Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops.
Marie replies:You'll come across Cosyn's name in connection with kitting out anyone who was being kept at the Kings expense (including Richard in his childhood) because he was the Keeper of the Great Wardrobe. He wasn't one of Henry's attendants.King Henry's keepers, who received their final salary payments after his death, were Robert Radcliff and William Sayer, both esquires.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-17 19:52:16
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-18 17:28:56
Nicholas Brown
Marie wrote:In fact, if one were being conspiracy-minded, is it possible that Henry managed to get himself into sanctuary with King's connivance?

Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.

Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.
It probably wasn't spying in the traditional sense, more a mutually beneficial triangle. Brampton had visited England in 1488, but had not been successful in restoring the lands he inherited from Isabel Tresham; King, as we know was ambitious, while his protegee Beaumont was an obscure academic who switched careers in 1495 when Warbeck had become a serious threat. From then on he progressed quickly. Had he lived longer, he may well have become a bishop or more. My guess is that the conduit to HT was Brampton corresponding with Beaumont who passed the information onto King. Brampton didn't get his lands back, but his son got a knighthood.

I have found a lot of references to HT having a sophisticated spy network, but is anything known about who was involved and how it operated?
Nico




On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 19:52:31 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-18 20:00:54
mariewalsh2003

Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.


Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 09:54:54
Hilary Jones
Hi, he's certainly named in the Foedera as one of three - the others being Sayer and Radcliffe - receiving reimbursement after the death of Henry in the Tower.
The others I'll have to trawl for again. H
On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 19:52:32 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 10:11:52
Hilary Jones
Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.


Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 12:11:46
mariewalsh2003

Marie replies:Well, yes, he certainly is one of those receiving payments relating to Henry's final maintenance costs; I'd agree with that. But the payment to him is not for looking after Henry - why would it be?There is just one such reference in the Foedera (vol xI, p. 712), and that is a payment of £10 for the provision of robes, beds and other necessities that Cosyn had provided for Henry VI in the Tower. An English-language summary of the self-same payment is given in Devon's Issues of the Exchequer (p. 497).That is the one and only reference to Cosyn in the accounts relating to Henry VI's final maintenance costs. There are payments Radcliffe and Sayer either side, but these are completely separate things.This payment doesn't indicate in any way that Cosyn was personally involved with Henry VI during his imprisonment. These are items that the Great Wardrobe provided. The Wardrobe accounts were always in the name of the current Keeper of the Wardrobe, and the payment was thus made to Cosyn personally.

Hi, he's certainly named in the Foedera as one of three - the others being Sayer and Radcliffe - receiving reimbursement after the death of Henry in the Tower.
The others I'll have to trawl for again. H
Show message history On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 19:52:32 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 12:18:26
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert.
Marie:It's not impossible, but I have to say that I've found quite a number of Emmas in the records so I'm afraid I can't agree that it's particularly significant. I do agree that, when looking for identities of spouses, families named in wills, enfeoffments and the like are the best place to start looking for evidence. Good luck.

Hilary wrote:
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont'
Marie:The Portuguese Chronicle of the Carmelites records that Brampton's wife was "Dona Margarida de Beamonda" - they jointly founded the chapel of St. Sebastian in the monastery.
Hilary:and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one?
Marie:I have explained the Somerset wills before, but it was a long time ago. They are all summaries - some more complete than others - of PCC wills. Bath and Wells sent its wills down to Exeter Cathedral for safekeeping and they were all destroyed along with the Devon & Cornwall wills when said cathedral was bombed during WWII.I don't know why T Beaumont refers to Brampton as "Master Edward Brampton" rather than Sir. We don't have a record of his knighthood, but he starts to be referred to as a knight in the summer of 1484, and then after Bosworth of course he mainly disappears from the English records.The earliest extant list of knightings for the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III was compiled, presumably from existing lists, by John Writhe, Garter King of Arms in the early 1500s. It's not absolutely complete, and it doesn't include Brampton.Henry VII does seem to have recognised his knighthood, however, as he is named as a knight in the pardon he was granted in 1489. (According to Barrie Williams' translation, the Chronicle of the Carmelites refers to him as "the great Edward Brampton" though it accords his wife the title of Dona.)By the time Thomas Beaumont made his will Sir Edward's eldest son had been knighted by Henry VII and Thomas Beaumont correctly names him as Sir John Brampton.But we have to remember that the PCC wills are copies entered into the register, so sometimes there are small errors. I once found a will which survived in the PCC copy and also the original will, and it was interesting to compare them. A whole chunk of words had been missed at one point. So it would perhaps be unwise to draw inferences from just this one wrong word.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 13:08:56
Hilary Jones
I'm not saying he looked after Henry but he was associated with him, my guess through the supply of clothes. So he would likely have met him several times.
He also supplied Edward with cloth of silver for a meeting with the Scottish ambassadors in 1462. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 12:11:49 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Marie replies:Well, yes, he certainly is one of those receiving payments relating to Henry's final maintenance costs; I'd agree with that. But the payment to him is not for looking after Henry - why would it be?There is just one such reference in the Foedera (vol xI, p. 712), and that is a payment of £10 for the provision of robes, beds and other necessities that Cosyn had provided for Henry VI in the Tower. An English-language summary of the self-same payment is given in Devon's Issues of the Exchequer (p. 497).That is the one and only reference to Cosyn in the accounts relating to Henry VI's final maintenance costs. There are payments Radcliffe and Sayer either side, but these are completely separate things.This payment doesn't indicate in any way that Cosyn was personally involved with Henry VI during his imprisonment. These are items that the Great Wardrobe provided. The Wardrobe accounts were always in the name of the current Keeper of the Wardrobe, and the payment was thus made to Cosyn personally.

Hi, he's certainly named in the Foedera as one of three - the others being Sayer and Radcliffe - receiving reimbursement after the death of Henry in the Tower.
The others I'll have to trawl for again. H
Show message history On Tuesday, 17 September 2019, 19:52:32 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes


Marie replies:

I'm intrigued. Can I ask what source(s) you're using?

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 13:13:21
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact.

Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text that follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states:To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."
The reference to Portugal connects the will to 'our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted by HT in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes:
http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.htmlhttp://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928

Nico




On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 10:11:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.


Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 14:25:27
Hilary Jones
These are the Emmes/Emmas I've found in London and the Home Counties. The dates have to be right of course, as does whether being married to someone else disqualifies them:
Emme Bramanger/Polyver - husband still alive in the 1490s
Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. Petit last seen in the early 1490s
Emme Fretwell (wife of John) -still married at crucial dates - disqualified
Emme Moager (wife of John, Pewterer) as above - disqualified
Emma Gregory (orphan daughter of Robert 1469) not of age then - possible candidate
Emme Constantine - wife of William (Alderman) - disqualified
Emma Shetford - married - disqualified
Emme Bonyfaunt - daughter of John - interesting
Emme Cruse - daughter of John
Emme Godlwell - daughter of John, married Henry Wadlowe - disqualified
I haven't listed those whose circumstances and dates just don't fit. I do think Emme Spayne, whoever she was was someone who won't be off the map. Beaumont was undoubtedly rich - look at his bequests. And I still have to find Mathew Cosyn and his son.
Re the Beaumonts and wills remember I missed the start of the discussion. I think Thomas Beaumont died quite young - Cosyn didn't go to Eton till the late 1480s. So at the time of his death Thomas's sister Margaret must have been mid- thirties? Would she have had a grown-up knighted son by then? I don't think we're chasing hares; just need to be sure. H

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 12:18:40 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert.
Marie:It's not impossible, but I have to say that I've found quite a number of Emmas in the records so I'm afraid I can't agree that it's particularly significant. I do agree that, when looking for identities of spouses, families named in wills, enfeoffments and the like are the best place to start looking for evidence. Good luck.

Hilary wrote:
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont'
Marie:The Portuguese Chronicle of the Carmelites records that Brampton's wife was "Dona Margarida de Beamonda" - they jointly founded the chapel of St. Sebastian in the monastery.
Hilary:and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one?
Marie:I have explained the Somerset wills before, but it was a long time ago. They are all summaries - some more complete than others - of PCC wills. Bath and Wells sent its wills down to Exeter Cathedral for safekeeping and they were all destroyed along with the Devon & Cornwall wills when said cathedral was bombed during WWII.I don't know why T Beaumont refers to Brampton as "Master Edward Brampton" rather than Sir. We don't have a record of his knighthood, but he starts to be referred to as a knight in the summer of 1484, and then after Bosworth of course he mainly disappears from the English records.The earliest extant list of knightings for the reigns of Edward IV and Richard III was compiled, presumably from existing lists, by John Writhe, Garter King of Arms in the early 1500s. It's not absolutely complete, and it doesn't include Brampton.Henry VII does seem to have recognised his knighthood, however, as he is named as a knight in the pardon he was granted in 1489. (According to Barrie Williams' translation, the Chronicle of the Carmelites refers to him as "the great Edward Brampton" though it accords his wife the title of Dona.)By the time Thomas Beaumont made his will Sir Edward's eldest son had been knighted by Henry VII and Thomas Beaumont correctly names him as Sir John Brampton.But we have to remember that the PCC wills are copies entered into the register, so sometimes there are small errors. I once found a will which survived in the PCC copy and also the original will, and it was interesting to compare them. A whole chunk of words had been missed at one point. So it would perhaps be unwise to draw inferences from just this one wrong word.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 14:26:40
Hilary Jones
I'll send it to you. It's in English and pretty easy to read. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 13:13:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact.

Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text that follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states:To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."
The reference to Portugal connects the will to 'our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted by HT in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes:
http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.htmlhttp://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928

Nico




On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 10:11:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.


Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 14:31:12
Hilary Jones
Yes I think the 'clergy' used it as an abbreviation for Seigneur. It's quite common. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 13:13:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact.

Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text that follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states:To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth."
The reference to Portugal connects the will to 'our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted by HT in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes:
http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.htmlhttp://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928

Nico




On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 10:11:57 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Can I throw a suggestion and a question in touching this:
I was revisiting the Cosyns and I noticed that 'Emma' is a named used in the family. It wasn't particularly popular in our period - I only found about 16 in London and surrounds for the whole century. I think Emme Spayne could have been Emme Cosyn, perhaps a sister of Robert and that would make Thomas Beaumont a cousin of William Cosyn his executor, and through him a kinsman of Oliver King? You see in the will one of the very few bequests to lay people is to Mathew Cosyn and his son Robert. I have still to find Mathew. The Cosyns, Beaumonts and Spaynes certainly worked in the same circles in London.
Secondly, how apart from Thomas Beaumont's will do we know that Brampton married Margaret Beaumont?Firstly, she isn't named in the will other than as 'Lady Beaumont' and secondly why would a scholar such as Thomas not accord Brampton his title as 'knight'? I'm talking about the PCC will, not the Somerset one. Has anyone seen the Somerset one in its entirety or is it a copy of the PCC one? You see there are quite a few Bramptons in London (no doubt successors of Mayor William) and I'd hate to think we were following a wrong trail.
Is there a deed which links Margaret Beaumont with Brampton? H

On Wednesday, 18 September 2019, 20:01:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Nico asked (re the idea that Oliver King may have helped Tudor escape into sanctuary):Would that be when he escaped from Brittany to France? If King could assist in that way, I wouldn't put it past him. Imho, like Hastings whatever he did after Edward IV died was to protect his own interests and clearly he wasn't going to find favour with Richard.
Marie answers:No, I was talking about Edward IV's abortive attempts to get Tudor to return to England in 1475/6. He became much more important dynastically after the previous surviving best Lancastrian hope, the Duke of Exeter, somehow went overboard and drowned on the way back from the French campaign (Exeter had been held in the Tower, but all the state prisoners were transferred to Calais for the duration of the campaign). Edward immediately sent Oliver King off to see the Duke of Brittany, and Vergil tells us that the negotiations culminated in Duke Francis agreeing to repatriate HT; that Edward's commissioners got him as far as the port of Saint-Malo, where they were to board ship, when Henry took sick. His journey was delayed whilst he recuperated, and in the meantime, says Vergil, a supporter at the Breton court managed to get there and transfer him into the cathedral sanctuary while they successfully pleaded with Duke Francis to change his mind and demand HT's return to his own custody. The historian Michael Jones (not to be confused with Michael K. Jones) has verified this story from surviving Breton accounts. The journey seems to have taken place in the spring of 1476. It seems likely that Oliver King (who had been formally appointed as Edward's francophone secretary on 18 March 1476) was again the leader of the English delegation. No one thinks to give a name until Edward Hall, and he says it was Dr. Stillington. I just think Hall was mixing up his bishops of Bath; Stillington was actually the bishop at this time, too lofty for such a furtive, awkward business, and hardly ever travelled because of ill health. For several years Edward had been having to get Stillington to hand the Great Seal over to someone else when the King was setting off on a journey that would keep him away from the capital for an extended period; there's no way Edward would even attempt to send Stillington off to Brittany.Whoever was in charge of that expedition was kind enough, at the every least, to allow Henry to stay in Saint-Malo until he felt better.

Nico wrote:Whatever he did, Henry was certainly impressed with him, as he was one of the 15 'caitiffs and villains that Perkin Warbeck claimed that HT had 'in favour and trust about his person.' To be fair, much of King's achievement under HT must have been because of his ability, but if he and Beaumont had strategic information from Beaumont about Warbeck, he may have been the way HT kept one step ahead of the Pretender.


Marie replies:

As things stand, I see the Setubal deposition as the result of pressure that Brampton was put under at that point. I don't see any reason to suppose that, if he had strategic information, it would have been shared with his brother-in-law in Henry's England, still less that he had been deliberately sending information Henry's way. He wouldn't have been persona non grata in England for so many years if that had been the case.

It's worth remembering that, by the time Henry returned to England in 1485, he was no longer comfortable speaking English. His natural tongue had become French. There are a few documents that tell us this. According to Ann Wroe he had a French confessor, and he told Isabella and Ferdinand that they should make sure Catherine of Aragon could speak French before she came over to marry Arthur, so that she would be able to converse with her new family (that's definitely right - I've seen the document in question). So the fact that Oliver King was a fluent French speaker would have given him a massive head start in the friendship stakes with or without a prior Breton connection.


Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 17:47:11
Doug Stamate
Hilary, What's the date on our' Thomas' will? I believe Brampton wasn't knighted until 1484, so perhaps that's the explanation? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information. Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops. Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard. I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son. I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will. BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 18:10:50
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Don't know if this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobe_(government)#The_rise_of_the_Wardrobe but if it's at all accurate, the Keeper of the Wardrobe wasn't all that important by the middle of the 15th century. There still was a Lord Privy Seal if I understand correctly, and that was a position in the Wardrobe. If Wikipedia has it correct, by this time the importance of the Lord Privy Seal had been eclipsed by the Lord Chamberlain. Originally (again, it is Wikipedia), the Lord Privy Seal was used for those appointments other than of the highest rank, as well as other day-to-day business, especially if the King was traveling, but that had changed since the Wardrobe's days of glory under the first and third Edwards. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 18:29:33
Nicholas Brown
Hilary wrote:These are the Emmes/Emmas I've found in London and the Home Counties. The dates have to be right of course, as does whether being married to someone else disqualifies them:Emme Bramanger/Polyver - husband still alive in the 1490sEmme Unknown/Stone/Petit. Petit last seen in the early 1490sEmme Fretwell (wife of John) -still married at crucial dates - disqualifiedEmme Moager (wife of John, Pewterer) as above - disqualifiedEmma Gregory (orphan daughter of Robert 1469) not of age then - possible candidateEmme Constantine - wife of William (Alderman) - disqualifiedEmma Shetford - married - disqualifiedEmme Bonyfaunt - daughter of John - interestingEmme Cruse - daughter of JohnEmme Godlwell - daughter of John, married Henry Wadlowe - disqualified
I haven't listed those whose circumstances and dates just don't fit. I do think Emme Spayne, whoever she was was someone who won't be off the map. Beaumont was undoubtedly rich - look at his bequests. And I still have to find Mathew Cosyn and his son.
Re the Beaumonts and wills remember I missed the start of the discussion. I think Thomas Beaumont died quite young - Cosyn didn't go to Eton till the late 1480s. So at the time of his death Thomas's sister Margaret must have been mid- thirties? Would she have had a grown-up knighted son by then? I don't think we're chasing hares; just need to be sure. H

Hi Hilary,
Of all the Emmes listed above, only 4 are realistic candidates - Emme Cruse, Emme Bonyfaunt, Emme Bramanger/Poliver and Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. I would say that Emme Gregory is too young to be her.
Thomas Beaumont died in 1507 aged around 43/44, so he was born c.1463/1464. Margaret's age is unknown, but she married Brampton after his first wife died in 1480. Perhaps Margaret was a few years older, born around 1460. Emme and Mr. Beaumont were most likely born in the 1430s or early 1440s. Margaret's and Brampton's son John was knighted in 1500, probably in his late teens. I don't know what John Brampton did for his knighthood, but it was most likely a reward for his father's efforts. However, he may have been able to give some information. According to the Setubal testimonies, his son had been friendly with PW.
FWIW, I assume that all the children are Margaret's biological children. Brampton's first wife was Isabel Tresham, widow of Sir William Tresham. Presumably, she would have been too old to have had any children by Brampton, but Marie and I did speculate about the possibility that Sir William may have married two women named Isabel, and that Brampton's wife was the second (younger) wife and the stepmother rather than the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham (d. 1471). I noticed that Brampton named a daughter Isabel, so I wonder if the older children were actually the children of Isabel and Margaret was the stepmother. In that case they could have been a bit older and Sir John of some use to HT.

Thanks for sending Thomas Beaumonts will. I will take a look at it later.
Nico

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:47:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, What's the date on our' Thomas' will? I believe Brampton wasn't knighted until 1484, so perhaps that's the explanation? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information. Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops. Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard. I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son. I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will. BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 18:34:05
Nicholas Brown

Hi Doug,
The date of Thomas Beaumont's will is February 6 1507.
Nico
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 18:22:11 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hilary wrote:These are the Emmes/Emmas I've found in London and the Home Counties. The dates have to be right of course, as does whether being married to someone else disqualifies them:Emme Bramanger/Polyver - husband still alive in the 1490sEmme Unknown/Stone/Petit. Petit last seen in the early 1490sEmme Fretwell (wife of John) -still married at crucial dates - disqualifiedEmme Moager (wife of John, Pewterer) as above - disqualifiedEmma Gregory (orphan daughter of Robert 1469) not of age then - possible candidateEmme Constantine - wife of William (Alderman) - disqualifiedEmma Shetford - married - disqualifiedEmme Bonyfaunt - daughter of John - interestingEmme Cruse - daughter of JohnEmme Godlwell - daughter of John, married Henry Wadlowe - disqualified
I haven't listed those whose circumstances and dates just don't fit. I do think Emme Spayne, whoever she was was someone who won't be off the map. Beaumont was undoubtedly rich - look at his bequests. And I still have to find Mathew Cosyn and his son.
Re the Beaumonts and wills remember I missed the start of the discussion. I think Thomas Beaumont died quite young - Cosyn didn't go to Eton till the late 1480s. So at the time of his death Thomas's sister Margaret must have been mid- thirties? Would she have had a grown-up knighted son by then? I don't think we're chasing hares; just need to be sure. H

Hi Hilary,
Of all the Emmes listed above, only 4 are realistic candidates - Emme Cruse, Emme Bonyfaunt, Emme Bramanger/Poliver and Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. I would say that Emme Gregory is too young to be her.
Thomas Beaumont died in 1507 aged around 43/44, so he was born c.1463/1464. Margaret's age is unknown, but she married Brampton after his first wife died in 1480. Perhaps Margaret was a few years older, born around 1460. Emme and Mr. Beaumont were most likely born in the 1430s or early 1440s. Margaret's and Brampton's son John was knighted in 1500, probably in his late teens. I don't know what John Brampton did for his knighthood, but it was most likely a reward for his father's efforts. However, he may have been able to give some information. According to the Setubal testimonies, his son had been friendly with PW.
FWIW, I assume that all the children are Margaret's biological children. Brampton's first wife was Isabel Tresham, widow of Sir William Tresham. Presumably, she would have been too old to have had any children by Brampton, but Marie and I did speculate about the possibility that Sir William may have married two women named Isabel, and that Brampton's wife was the second (younger) wife and the stepmother rather than the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham (d. 1471). I noticed that Brampton named a daughter Isabel, so I wonder if the older children were actually the children of Isabel and Margaret was the stepmother. In that case they could have been a bit older and Sir John of some use to HT.

Thanks for sending Thomas Beaumonts will. I will take a look at it later.
Nico

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:47:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, What's the date on our' Thomas' will? I believe Brampton wasn't knighted until 1484, so perhaps that's the explanation? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information. Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops. Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard. I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son. I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will. BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-19 20:49:40
mariewalsh2003
Hilary wrote:
I'm not saying he looked after Henry but he was associated with him, my guess through the supply of clothes. So he would likely have met him several times.
He also supplied Edward with cloth of silver for a meeting with the Scottish ambassadors in 1462.


Marie replies:
I don't know how many staff there were in the Wardrobe, or whether the Keeper would actually measure people up for clothing. The King would have his tailor as well, and the tailor and the Wardrobe worked together. The trouble is, Hilary, you could use that argument about anyone being supplied by the King. I've been through all the Wardrobe accounts for the early years of Edward's reign, looking for what I was looking for, and there are clothes made for Clarence, Gloucester, the Lady Margaret. There were all sorts of specialists making things for the Wardrobe - broiderers, horse harness makers, people stamping designs of roses on to leather, etc, etc, all sorts, because the total kitting out of the household for long journeys and ceremonial occasions was included. There is even reference to waxing of outer clothes for travelling in wet weather. The Wardrobe also encompassed the office of the King's Beds.Silks and satins also had to be purchased from merchants, particularly for big occasions, and that would be the Keeper's responsibility as shown by the law suit Piers Curteys later brought against Thomas Lynom (as the Crown representative with whom he had dealt) for reimbursing the cost of fabrics for Katherine's marriage.
So I would think the Keeper would have been kept pretty busy ensuring this important department ran smoothly. He would have had enough to do overseeing the high-end stuff, and I can't see him personally going round to measure people up. It doesn't mean he'd never met King Henry, only that this entry is not evidence of a personal working relationship.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-20 09:43:11
Hilary Jones
I think I saw Nico's answer but yes, 1507. I'm sure by 1484 Brampton is referred to as a knight in the Fine Rolls. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:47:33 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, What's the date on our' Thomas' will? I believe Brampton wasn't knighted until 1484, so perhaps that's the explanation? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information. Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops. Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard. I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son. I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will. BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-20 09:44:35
Hilary Jones
Thanks Doug, yes I looked at that earlier. It seems to have become a sort of jumble of administrative tasks. So I agree. H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 18:11:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Don't know if this helps: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobe_(government)#The_rise_of_the_Wardrobe but if it's at all accurate, the Keeper of the Wardrobe wasn't all that important by the middle of the 15th century. There still was a Lord Privy Seal if I understand correctly, and that was a position in the Wardrobe. If Wikipedia has it correct, by this time the importance of the Lord Privy Seal had been eclipsed by the Lord Chamberlain. Originally (again, it is Wikipedia), the Lord Privy Seal was used for those appointments other than of the highest rank, as well as other day-to-day business, especially if the King was traveling, but that had changed since the Wardrobe's days of glory under the first and third Edwards. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I know he was keeper of the Wardrobe. His name appears with Radcliffe and Sayer quite a few times. The Wardrobe as you know wasn't just about clothes.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-20 10:08:24
Hilary Jones
Nico wrote:
'Of all the Emmes listed above, only 4 are realistic candidates - Emme Cruse, Emme Bonyfaunt, Emme Bramanger/Poliver and Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. I would say that Emme Gregory is too young to be her.
Thomas Beaumont died in 1507 aged around 43/44, so he was born c.1463/1464. Margaret's age is unknown, but she married Brampton after his first wife died in 1480. Perhaps Margaret was a few years older, born around 1460. Emme and Mr. Beaumont were most likely born in the 1430s or early 1440s. Margaret's and Brampton's son John was knighted in 1500, probably in his late teens. I don't know what John Brampton did for his knighthood, but it was most likely a reward for his father's efforts. However, he may have been able to give some information. According to the Setubal testimonies, his son had been friendly with PW.'

Hi, all those above need more work but Emme Stone/Petit is to me the most interesting because there are lots of lawsuits over Stone's will involving Scrivener Spayne but in one such case Petit is described as 'late the husband of' Emme so I think unfortunately she's out. Most were of the same merchant class and Bonyfaunt, I recall, had a connection with the Beaumonts. Of course there was a Richard Spayne around at this time but he is more elusive.
Nico wrote:
FWIW, I assume that all the children are Margaret's biological children. Brampton's first wife was Isabel Tresham, widow of Sir William Tresham. Presumably, she would have been too old to have had any children by Brampton, but Marie and I did speculate about the possibility that Sir William may have married two women named Isabel, and that Brampton's wife was the second (younger) wife and the stepmother rather than the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham (d. 1471). I noticed that Brampton named a daughter Isabel, so I wonder if the older children were actually the children of Isabel and Margaret was the stepmother. In that case they could have been a bit older and Sir John of some use to HT.

I think it unlikely that Brampton would have taken another 'aged' wife (that's if Isabel was Isabel Tresham) so, like you, I reckon Margaret would have been born nearer to 1460 than 1450. This would make her mother born perhaps in the early 1440s? I like the idea that the two elder children could have been another Isabel's - Isabel is an unusual name to insert without any royal connotations.
If you read the will can you check that the Cosyn name is Mathew? I can't think of anything else it could be but sometimes it's easy to confuse Ms ith Ws. Strangely enough it's perhaps the most difficult thing to read in the will. H


On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 18:32:01 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:These are the Emmes/Emmas I've found in London and the Home Counties. The dates have to be right of course, as does whether being married to someone else disqualifies them:Emme Bramanger/Polyver - husband still alive in the 1490sEmme Unknown/Stone/Petit. Petit last seen in the early 1490sEmme Fretwell (wife of John) -still married at crucial dates - disqualifiedEmme Moager (wife of John, Pewterer) as above - disqualifiedEmma Gregory (orphan daughter of Robert 1469) not of age then - possible candidateEmme Constantine - wife of William (Alderman) - disqualifiedEmma Shetford - married - disqualifiedEmme Bonyfaunt - daughter of John - interestingEmme Cruse - daughter of JohnEmme Godlwell - daughter of John, married Henry Wadlowe - disqualified
I haven't listed those whose circumstances and dates just don't fit. I do think Emme Spayne, whoever she was was someone who won't be off the map. Beaumont was undoubtedly rich - look at his bequests. And I still have to find Mathew Cosyn and his son.
Re the Beaumonts and wills remember I missed the start of the discussion. I think Thomas Beaumont died quite young - Cosyn didn't go to Eton till the late 1480s. So at the time of his death Thomas's sister Margaret must have been mid- thirties? Would she have had a grown-up knighted son by then? I don't think we're chasing hares; just need to be sure. H

Hi Hilary,
Of all the Emmes listed above, only 4 are realistic candidates - Emme Cruse, Emme Bonyfaunt, Emme Bramanger/Poliver and Emme Unknown/Stone/Petit. I would say that Emme Gregory is too young to be her.
Thomas Beaumont died in 1507 aged around 43/44, so he was born c.1463/1464. Margaret's age is unknown, but she married Brampton after his first wife died in 1480. Perhaps Margaret was a few years older, born around 1460. Emme and Mr. Beaumont were most likely born in the 1430s or early 1440s. Margaret's and Brampton's son John was knighted in 1500, probably in his late teens. I don't know what John Brampton did for his knighthood, but it was most likely a reward for his father's efforts. However, he may have been able to give some information. According to the Setubal testimonies, his son had been friendly with PW.
FWIW, I assume that all the children are Margaret's biological children. Brampton's first wife was Isabel Tresham, widow of Sir William Tresham. Presumably, she would have been too old to have had any children by Brampton, but Marie and I did speculate about the possibility that Sir William may have married two women named Isabel, and that Brampton's wife was the second (younger) wife and the stepmother rather than the mother of Sir Thomas Tresham (d. 1471). I noticed that Brampton named a daughter Isabel, so I wonder if the older children were actually the children of Isabel and Margaret was the stepmother. In that case they could have been a bit older and Sir John of some use to HT.

Thanks for sending Thomas Beaumonts will. I will take a look at it later.
Nico

On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:47:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, What's the date on our' Thomas' will? I believe Brampton wasn't knighted until 1484, so perhaps that's the explanation? Doug Hilary wrote: Nico et al I'm all behind again but a bit more information. Robert Cosyn, Oliver King's brother-in-law, was one of the people looking after 'Henry of Windsor' just before his death. There are numerous expenses paid to him (and others) by Edward in the accounts. I stumbled on them, as usual, by accident. So it endorses the 'Henry' connection of these bishops. Secondly, Nico, the London will of John Beaumond, the Chandler is wrong. His blood relations are not Alice, Margery, Johanna and Richard but John, Johanna and Richard. I'll send it to you Nico - although in Latin it's much easier to read (and shorter) and that of Richard Beamond, John's son. I do think Salter Thomas and Chandler John (and his children) were related. Our Salter appears in numerous deeds with the girls' husbands and indeed with Stephen Forster. But there is no mention of Watlington in Chandler John's will. BTW I've looked again at 'our' Thomas's will. (have you got the original not the Somerset one?). He does single out Oliver King for special prayers and masses almost immediately so I think your theory about paternity is very interesting. And one tiny thing. He calls Edward Brampton, 'Master Edward Brampton' not Edward Brampton knight. Strange.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-20 10:19:54
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, trouble is he is only one of three singled out here:
Respondebit.
Willielmo Sayer Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito, super Expensis dicti Henrici per Breve praedictum.
xxs.
Respondebit.
Roberto Cosyn, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito, pro Provisione Robarum, Lectorum, & aliorum Necessariorum, per ipsum Robertum pro dicto Henrico, infra Turrim Londoniae existente, providendorum per Breve praedictum.
xl.
Respondebit.
Roberto Radclyff & Willielmo Sayer Armigeris, in Denariis eis liberatis per Manus suas proprias ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice vil. ixs. vid. tàm pro Vadiis & Dietis suis, quàm pro Dietis & Vadiis xxxvi aliarum Personarum, Expectantium apud Turrim praedictum super Salva Custodia dicti Henrici; videlicet, pro Septem Diebus, Primo Die incipiente xxix die Aprilis, Anno xi Regis nunc; Cuilibet eorum capienti per Diem vid. per tempus praedictum; & alia Vice xs. per Manus dictorum Roberti & Willielmi pro Dietis dicti Henrici per tempus praedictum, per Breve praedictum.
vil. xixs. vid.
Roberto Cosyn, in Denar. sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito ad Vices; videlicet, Unâ Vice ivl. & alia Vice xls. pro diversis Necessariis, per ipsum pro dicto Henrico de Windesore Emptis, per Breve praedictum.
vil.
Respondebit.
Willielmo Sayer Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis de praestito per Manus proprias, pro Dietis dicti Henrici de Wyndesore, & xi Personarum Attendentium infra Turrim super Custodia ejusdem Henrici, per Breve praedictum.
ls.
Respondebit.
Eidem Willielmo Sayer, in Denar. sibi liberatis per Manus proprias super Expensis & Dietâ dicti Henrici, & x Personarum Attendentium infra Turrim super Custodia ejusdem Henrici, videlicet, pro xiv Diebus, Primo incipiente xi Die Maii ultimò praeterto, per Breve praedictum.
ivl. vs.
Roberto Radclyff Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice x Marc. aliâ Vice v Marc. per manus proprias de Regardo, pro Custodibus & Expensis suis & xxij Hominum secum Expectantium infra Turrim super Custodia dicti Henrici, per Breve supradictum.
xl.
Willielmo Sayer, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice viis. pro Conductu Trium Lectorum conductorum pro dicto Willielmo & aliis Attendentibus infra Turrim super Custodia dicti Henrici per xiv dies, ac pro Dietis ejusdem per idem tempus, & aliâ vice iiis. xd. pro Dietis dicti Henrici per duos dies infra Turrim praedictum, per Breve supradictum.
xs. xd.'
And this is followed by payment to two involved in Henry's burial. Seems Robert supplied several things? H
On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 21:12:38 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:
I'm not saying he looked after Henry but he was associated with him, my guess through the supply of clothes. So he would likely have met him several times.
He also supplied Edward with cloth of silver for a meeting with the Scottish ambassadors in 1462.


Marie replies:
I don't know how many staff there were in the Wardrobe, or whether the Keeper would actually measure people up for clothing. The King would have his tailor as well, and the tailor and the Wardrobe worked together. The trouble is, Hilary, you could use that argument about anyone being supplied by the King. I've been through all the Wardrobe accounts for the early years of Edward's reign, looking for what I was looking for, and there are clothes made for Clarence, Gloucester, the Lady Margaret. There were all sorts of specialists making things for the Wardrobe - broiderers, horse harness makers, people stamping designs of roses on to leather, etc, etc, all sorts, because the total kitting out of the household for long journeys and ceremonial occasions was included. There is even reference to waxing of outer clothes for travelling in wet weather. The Wardrobe also encompassed the office of the King's Beds.Silks and satins also had to be purchased from merchants, particularly for big occasions, and that would be the Keeper's responsibility as shown by the law suit Piers Curteys later brought against Thomas Lynom (as the Crown representative with whom he had dealt) for reimbursing the cost of fabrics for Katherine's marriage.
So I would think the Keeper would have been kept pretty busy ensuring this important department ran smoothly. He would have had enough to do overseeing the high-end stuff, and I can't see him personally going round to measure people up. It doesn't mean he'd never met King Henry, only that this entry is not evidence of a personal working relationship.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-20 10:35:34
mariewalsh2003
BackReplyViewNextPreviousFixed Width FontView Source57073Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' PlotExpand MessagesHilary JonesToday at 2:19 AMMarie replies:Very quickly, I'm really not sure what the problem is. This is clearly a set of final payments relating to Henry (presumably after the close of the previous account at Easter), pulled together shortly after his death in order to close the account on him. It's all given in English in Devon's Issues of the Exchequer, which is available for free download, so you won't be relying on a visual impression. It's a group of items including final salaries to carers (who also escorted Henry's body to Chertsey), recent purchases from the Wardrobe (i.e. to Cosyn), food, etc, funeral costs. There is at least one other payee, surnamed Martyn, but I'm leaving in a bit and can't look it up now.Devon also includes, from later Issue Rolls, payments for the maintenance of the Duke of Exeter and Queen Margaret in the Tower.The problem is, as I say, you could no doubt pull out items from Cosyn's extant accounts or payments to him in the Issue Rolls to "prove" he was close to any one of these prisoners, or to the king and his younger siblings, or any one of them, or the little princesses, or anyone on any side in the conflicts. None of these entries actually show anything other than that he was doing his job.Sorry.
Hi Marie, trouble is he is only one of three singled out here:
Respondebit.
Willielmo Sayer Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito, super Expensis dicti Henrici per Breve praedictum.
xxs.
Respondebit.
Roberto Cosyn, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito, pro Provisione Robarum, Lectorum, & aliorum Necessariorum, per ipsum Robertum pro dicto Henrico, infra Turrim Londoniae existente, providendorum per Breve praedictum.
xl.
Respondebit.
Roberto Radclyff & Willielmo Sayer Armigeris, in Denariis eis liberatis per Manus suas proprias ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice vil. ixs. vid. tàm pro Vadiis & Dietis suis, quàm pro Dietis & Vadiis xxxvi aliarum Personarum, Expectantium apud Turrim praedictum super Salva Custodia dicti Henrici; videlicet, pro Septem Diebus, Primo Die incipiente xxix die Aprilis, Anno xi Regis nunc; Cuilibet eorum capienti per Diem vid. per tempus praedictum; & alia Vice xs. per Manus dictorum Roberti & Willielmi pro Dietis dicti Henrici per tempus praedictum, per Breve praedictum.
vil. xixs. vid.
Roberto Cosyn, in Denar. sibi liberatis per Manus proprias de praestito ad Vices; videlicet, Unâ Vice ivl. & alia Vice xls. pro diversis Necessariis, per ipsum pro dicto Henrico de Windesore Emptis, per Breve praedictum.
vil.
Respondebit.
Willielmo Sayer Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis de praestito per Manus proprias, pro Dietis dicti Henrici de Wyndesore, & xi Personarum Attendentium infra Turrim super Custodia ejusdem Henrici, per Breve praedictum.
ls.
Respondebit.
Eidem Willielmo Sayer, in Denar. sibi liberatis per Manus proprias super Expensis & Dietâ dicti Henrici, & x Personarum Attendentium infra Turrim super Custodia ejusdem Henrici, videlicet, pro xiv Diebus, Primo incipiente xi Die Maii ultimò praeterto, per Breve praedictum.
ivl. vs.
Roberto Radclyff Armigero, in Denariis sibi liberatis ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice x Marc. aliâ Vice v Marc. per manus proprias de Regardo, pro Custodibus & Expensis suis & xxij Hominum secum Expectantium infra Turrim super Custodia dicti Henrici, per Breve supradictum.
xl.
Willielmo Sayer, in Denariis sibi liberatis per Manus proprias ad Vices; videlicet, unâ Vice viis. pro Conductu Trium Lectorum conductorum pro dicto Willielmo & aliis Attendentibus infra Turrim super Custodia dicti Henrici per xiv dies, ac pro Dietis ejusdem per idem tempus, & aliâ vice iiis. xd. pro Dietis dicti Henrici per duos dies infra Turrim praedictum, per Breve supradictum.
xs. xd.'
And this is followed by payment to two involved in Henry's burial. Seems Robert supplied several things? H

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 02:45:31
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I went to Wikipedia and found this link of those who'd held the position of Keepers and Masters of the Great Wardrobe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardrobe_(government)#Keepers_and_Masters_of_the_Great_Wardrobe It has Robert Cousin listed as holding that position from 1466 to 1470 and again from 1471 to 1476 (I presume the gap is for the Re-Adeption?). Wouldn't the Keeper/Master be more of a supervising position; tasked with knowing where everything stored away was, as well as what wasn't stashed away somewhere and needed to be purchased? So, such things as basic furniture and bedclothes might be stored somewhere and needed to be brought to, in Henry's case, the Tower, while cloth for Edward's suit would likely need to be purchased. Doug Who presumes that 1462 is supposed to be 1472... Hilary wrote: I'm not saying he looked after Henry but he was associated with him, my guess through the supply of clothes. So he would likely have met him several times.He also supplied Edward with cloth of silver for a meeting with the Scottish ambassadors in 1462.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 02:58:28
Doug Stamate
Nico, A thought occurred to me; could that Maister refer to Brampton's profession, that of being a ship's captain? As in The master of the vessel? Doug Nico wrote: Hi, Marie, thanks for the info on the Oliver King and the 1475/6 negotiations about the return of Henry Tudor. Also, I do recall some reference to Henry having a preference for speaking French, so in that sense Oliver King would have been an invaluable contact. Hilary, you could be right about Emma possibly being a Cosyn by birth, thus making King, Cosyn and Beaumont all related - certainly much more likely than my speculation about Cosyn and Beaumont being his illegitmate sons. As for Beaumont's will, it is the Somerset one that I read. I couldn't find a PCC version. I haven't seen any deeds connecting the two either, but I hadn't checked for any specifically, so it is worth a look. However, the Somerset will is definitely a reference to Brampton as the relevant text th at follows his bequest to Emme Spayne states: To Maister Edward Brampton, an hope of gold to be made for him, to my lady Brampton, my suster, a rynge of gold with a flatte diamonde, and to eche of their children, ie Sir John B, Henry, George, Elizabeth, Mary and Jane a hope of golde of the value of 20s, with this scripture to be made within everyche of the same hoopes, "Ye shall pray for Sir Thomas Beamonde" these rynges to be made and sent into Portingale unto them by some sure messenger as sone as myn executors can make provision after my deth." The reference to Portugal connects the will to our' Sir Edward Brampton, and Margaret and the children's names match those listed in genealogies, (although some differ on the age order), so it must be the right one. Also, Brampton's eldest son was knighted in 1500. I have just seen Marie's note on Maister/Sir, so I will leave that to her. I was a bit surprised that Thomas Beaumont called himself Sir, as I didn't think he had been knighted. Perhaps it is a courtesy title for clergy. FWIW, here are some links to auxiliary notes: http://queryblog.tudorhistory.org/2012/01/question-from-bron-sir-edward-brampton.html http://www.disnorge.no/slektsforum/viewtopic.php?t=33250 https://www.geni.com/people/Sir-Edward-Brampton/6000000014935598928 Nico

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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 03:13:23
Doug Stamate
Nico, Darn! I was sort of hoping for a date closer to 1484, when Brampton was knighted. My original thought was that perhaps some of the terms from an earlier will might have been just recopied into a newer version. But with the passage of more than twenty years, that doesn't seem too likely. Oh well... In a post to Hilary I mentioned the idea that perhaps that Maister was a reference to Brampton having been a ship's captain. Any possibility there? Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, The date of Thomas Beaumont's will is February 6 1507.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 03:20:42
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I hadn't seen this before writing another post, please just ignore the second one as it doesn't add much (if anything). Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Doug, yes I looked at that earlier. It seems to have become a sort of jumble of administrative tasks. So I agree.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 08:49:42
Hilary Jones
Hi all, Brampton must have been made a knight sometime between 8 Oct 1483 when he was referred to in the CCR as 'esquire' and 21 Aug 1484 when he is referred to as 'knight of the king's body' - CCR again. H
On Saturday, 21 September 2019, 03:13:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico, Darn! I was sort of hoping for a date closer to 1484, when Brampton was knighted. My original thought was that perhaps some of the terms from an earlier will might have been just recopied into a newer version. But with the passage of more than twenty years, that doesn't seem too likely. Oh well... In a post to Hilary I mentioned the idea that perhaps that Maister was a reference to Brampton having been a ship's captain. Any possibility there? Doug Nico wrote: Hi Doug, The date of Thomas Beaumont's will is February 6 1507.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-21 12:31:24
mariewalsh2003
Brampton's knighthood, from memory, no earlier than May/June 1484.
M

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-22 01:28:23
Nicholas Brown
Hi,

Hilary wrote:If you read the will can you check that the Cosyn name is Mathew? I can't think of anything else it could be but sometimes it's easy to confuse Ms ith Ws. Strangely enough it's perhaps the most difficult thing to read in the will.
I have had a look at the will, but it seems to be only one page. The main part of it reads much like the Somerset will, but the last word is Emme (the bequest to Emme Spayne) with more to follow. I couldn't find 'Cosyn,' but I think it is on the next page, as the Somerset will lists 'Maister William Cousyn, Dean of Wellys' as one of his executors, not Matthew.

In the meantime, I will have a look up the Bonyfaunts.




Doug wrote:A thought occurred to me; could that Maister refer to Brampton's profession, that of being a ship's captain? As in The master of the vessel?
You could be right about this. I would have thought he would have used his title 'Sir,' but Maister appears to be a mark of a powerful respectable position. It could refer to his having been a ship's captain, or perhaps to him being a person of wealth and standing.

Doug also wrote:The only problem I have with the possibility that the Woodvilles might have known of the Pre-Contract before Edward IV died is that what they did, or planned to do, after Edward's death seems to me to be very, well, ad hoc, don't they? I can understand plans misfiring because they were conceived and carried out in a hurry, but if there was time, years or even months, for consideration and planning, one would think better ideas would have come to the fore. Or, I suppose, it's just another example of the Woodvilles' general unfitness for the positions they made a grab for?
Last year when we discussed the events leading up to Stony Stratford after Edward died, it was evident that while it was clearly important for the Woodvilles to get Edward V to London to be crowned, Anthony Woodville seemed to be taking his time and wasn't particularly organized about the journey, which led us to conclude that it was likely that the Woodvilles were unaware of the precontract. Neverthless, it can't be ruled out.If Eleanor's family and a few others knew, the secret could have travelled in certain circles. Maybe trying to get a boy King to his coronation quickly and co-ordinate a coup against his protector was a difficult task and he was overwhelmed. Another possibility was that the Woodvilles were just over confident, entitled and so used to getting their own way that they couldn't imagine anything going wrong for them. Alternatively, could it be possible that the Woodvilles couldn't agree on a strategy even if they knew about the precontract and the danger surrounding it? AW doesn't strike me as a man of action, so if EW and Dorset were pushing for an attack on Richard, I could see him being reluctant.
Anyway, I just downloaded an ebook about AW by a medium called Dorothy Davies. If she comes up with any gems from the ghost world I will let you know.

Nico
On Saturday, 21 September 2019, 12:31:29 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Brampton's knighthood, from memory, no earlier than May/June 1484.
M

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-22 04:41:12
Doug Stamate
Marie wrote:
"Brampton's knighthood, from memory, no earlier than May/June 1484."

Doug here:
Thanks! I thought it was during Richard's reign, but wasn't certain - even
considered checking with Wikipedia!
Doug


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

Re: June 1483 and the 'Hastings' Plot

2019-09-22 09:47:12
Hilary Jones
Sorry my PC must have saved it as two pages. I'll send you the other. H
On Sunday, 22 September 2019, 01:28:29 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,

Hilary wrote:If you read the will can you check that the Cosyn name is Mathew? I can't think of anything else it could be but sometimes it's easy to confuse Ms ith Ws. Strangely enough it's perhaps the most difficult thing to read in the will.
I have had a look at the will, but it seems to be only one page. The main part of it reads much like the Somerset will, but the last word is Emme (the bequest to Emme Spayne) with more to follow. I couldn't find 'Cosyn,' but I think it is on the next page, as the Somerset will lists 'Maister William Cousyn, Dean of Wellys' as one of his executors, not Matthew.

In the meantime, I will have a look up the Bonyfaunts.




Doug wrote:A thought occurred to me; could that Maister refer to Brampton's profession, that of being a ship's captain? As in The master of the vessel?
You could be right about this. I would have thought he would have used his title 'Sir,' but Maister appears to be a mark of a powerful respectable position. It could refer to his having been a ship's captain, or perhaps to him being a person of wealth and standing.

Doug also wrote:The only problem I have with the possibility that the Woodvilles might have known of the Pre-Contract before Edward IV died is that what they did, or planned to do, after Edward's death seems to me to be very, well, ad hoc, don't they? I can understand plans misfiring because they were conceived and carried out in a hurry, but if there was time, years or even months, for consideration and planning, one would think better ideas would have come to the fore. Or, I suppose, it's just another example of the Woodvilles' general unfitness for the positions they made a grab for?
Last year when we discussed the events leading up to Stony Stratford after Edward died, it was evident that while it was clearly important for the Woodvilles to get Edward V to London to be crowned, Anthony Woodville seemed to be taking his time and wasn't particularly organized about the journey, which led us to conclude that it was likely that the Woodvilles were unaware of the precontract. Neverthless, it can't be ruled out.If Eleanor's family and a few others knew, the secret could have travelled in certain circles. Maybe trying to get a boy King to his coronation quickly and co-ordinate a coup against his protector was a difficult task and he was overwhelmed. Another possibility was that the Woodvilles were just over confident, entitled and so used to getting their own way that they couldn't imagine anything going wrong for them. Alternatively, could it be possible that the Woodvilles couldn't agree on a strategy even if they knew about the precontract and the danger surrounding it? AW doesn't strike me as a man of action, so if EW and Dorset were pushing for an attack on Richard, I could see him being reluctant.
Anyway, I just downloaded an ebook about AW by a medium call