Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

More Info on Forster

2019-09-13 09:30:36
hjnatdat

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, Forsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another. H



Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-13 13:08:50
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I hadn't realized that Forster had links to Somerset or that was part of the same West Country scene as Stillington. If he was known in the same area as EW's uncle, then that was probably how he got the recommendation to be her treasurer.

Who could have known about the precontract is something that I have often wavered over. I wasn't entirely convinced by Peter Hancock's arguments, but Catesby may have found out through his legal work, but others I can't say.

Until a thread earlier this year where Marie mentioned that Eleanor's mother lived in London or at least spent a lot of time there, I had accepted J-AH's version that Edward married Eleanor while visiting one of her estates in Warwickshire in June 1461 without question. If so, I would have thought that the retinue and ceremony surrounding a King's visit would make such an event difficult to conceal, and a few people would have known, and eventually the secret would have made its way around social circles in the area. People would have been careful who they told, but stories like that tend to leak. If Forster was part of that network then he may have discovered the precontract that way, but I can't see him not passing it on to EW. If so, then she and the Woodvilles would have been aware of it before Edward died.

However, since it appears likely that both Eleanor, Edward and Stillington were in London for several months before Edward left for Ludlow at the end of 1460, the idea that Stillington performed a clandestine marriage in London in the late summer or autumn of 1460 makes more sense. Also, at the time Edward wasn't King or likely to be in the near future. A marriage between the Earl of March and a noblewoman wasn't outrageous at all, so Stillington may have been happy to officiate. However, when Edward suddenly became King, he and Eleanor may have decided to repudiate the marriage and never mention it again. Thus, it is possible that it remained a closely guarded secret between Edward, Eleanor and Stillington, and possibly a few very trusted retainers.
The Woodvilles didn't seem in too much of a hurry at first, but by Stony Stratford they were more desperate to get EV to London for the coronation quickly. The motivation for that was probably to subvert Richard's role as protector, but by June they were more desperate. Was the secret out? Could Forster have known and passed the information on to Hastings offering him a chance to collaborate with the Woodvilles to protect his position? I have always thought he was a good bridge between Hastings and the Woodvilles. Was the June 13 meeting the original date set to debate the precontract and decide EV's future? It is close enough to the generally accepted revelation date of June 8 for an urgent meeting, but allowing enough time to prepare for the seriousness of it.

Nico





On Friday, 13 September 2019, 09:30:43 BST, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, Forsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another. H



More Info on Forster

2019-09-19 14:42:34
Doug Stamate
From: mailto: Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 4:30 AM To: Subject: {Disarmed} More Info on Forster

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are tr ansactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, ther e were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another. H




--
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.

More Info on Forster

2019-09-19 17:38:20
Doug Stamate

Hilary,

I could be completely mistaken, but it seems to me that how Forster came to be employed by EW could very well be an excellent example of how, sometimes, the inter-relationships amongst people/families might help explain some point or other. In this case, Forster's first coming to the attention of EW and then entering her employment.

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?

FWIW, if it was Stillington who brought the Pre-Contract before the Council, and currently I don't see any other viable candidate, I don't think he'd have had to worry much about Rotherham or Morton not supporting him. Rotherham was in the dog-house, and had been since he'd given the Great Seal to EW. Morton, as far as I know, wasn't deeply involved in Council affairs, although his support on the subject might have been welcomed. I don't really know how much authority Bourchier would have had over Stillington clerically speaking, but I imagine Stillington would have at least preferred to have a former Lord Chancellor on his side.

Doug

(Who apologizes for the delay  found a whole list of posts at the bottom of my Incoming that I'd missed)

Hilary wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another.




--
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: More Info on Forster

2019-09-20 09:41:37
Hilary Jones
Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice..
Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge.
Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity.
Like everything needs more work. H



On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:38:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,

I could be completely mistaken, but it seems to me that how Forster came to be employed by EW could very well be an excellent example of how, sometimes, the inter-relationships amongst people/families might help explain some point or other. In this case, Forster's first coming to the attention of EW and then entering her employment.

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?

FWIW, if it was Stillington who brought the Pre-Contract before the Council, and currently I don't see any other viable candidate, I don't think he'd have had to worry much about Rotherham or Morton not supporting him. Rotherham was in the dog-house, and had been since he'd given the Great Seal to EW. Morton, as far as I know, wasn't deeply involved in Council affairs, although his support on the subject might have been welcomed. I don't really know how much authority Bourchier would have had over Stillington clerically speaking, but I imagine Stillington would have at least preferred to have a former Lord Chancellor on his side.

Doug

(Who apologizes for the delay  found a whole list of posts at the bottom of my Incoming that I'd missed)

Hilary wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another.




--
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: More Info on Forster

2019-09-20 12:07:37
Hilary Jones
Hi, I've just noticed (silly me) that Archbishop Bourchier was Elizabeth Talbot's uncle (by marriage). Now whether he knew her well, liked or disliked her, he would surely have consulted her re the Pre-Contract? And we know Elizabeth had her own grudges against Edward re the Norfolk lands. Puts a whole new complexion on things I reckon.
After all it was Bourchier who was going to have to 'do the job'. How could he in all conscience anoint someone he did not believe to be the true heir? And that applies to his anointing of Richard as well. H

On Friday, 20 September 2019, 09:41:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice..
Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge.
Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity.
Like everything needs more work. H



On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:38:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,

I could be completely mistaken, but it seems to me that how Forster came to be employed by EW could very well be an excellent example of how, sometimes, the inter-relationships amongst people/families might help explain some point or other. In this case, Forster's first coming to the attention of EW and then entering her employment.

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?

FWIW, if it was Stillington who brought the Pre-Contract before the Council, and currently I don't see any other viable candidate, I don't think he'd have had to worry much about Rotherham or Morton not supporting him. Rotherham was in the dog-house, and had been since he'd given the Great Seal to EW. Morton, as far as I know, wasn't deeply involved in Council affairs, although his support on the subject might have been welcomed. I don't really know how much authority Bourchier would have had over Stillington clerically speaking, but I imagine Stillington would have at least preferred to have a former Lord Chancellor on his side.

Doug

(Who apologizes for the delay  found a whole list of posts at the bottom of my Incoming that I'd missed)

Hilary wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another.




--
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: More Info on Forster

2019-09-21 08:53:27
Hilary Jones
And he was also the executor of Margaret Talbot's will i.e.that of EB and Elizabeth's mother. Perhaps this 'story' was better known in some quarters than we thought.
On Friday, 20 September 2019, 12:07:46 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, I've just noticed (silly me) that Archbishop Bourchier was Elizabeth Talbot's uncle (by marriage). Now whether he knew her well, liked or disliked her, he would surely have consulted her re the Pre-Contract? And we know Elizabeth had her own grudges against Edward re the Norfolk lands. Puts a whole new complexion on things I reckon.
After all it was Bourchier who was going to have to 'do the job'. How could he in all conscience anoint someone he did not believe to be the true heir? And that applies to his anointing of Richard as well.. H

On Friday, 20 September 2019, 09:41:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice..
Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge.
Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity.
Like everything needs more work. H



On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:38:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,

I could be completely mistaken, but it seems to me that how Forster came to be employed by EW could very well be an excellent example of how, sometimes, the inter-relationships amongst people/families might help explain some point or other. In this case, Forster's first coming to the attention of EW and then entering her employment.

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?

FWIW, if it was Stillington who brought the Pre-Contract before the Council, and currently I don't see any other viable candidate, I don't think he'd have had to worry much about Rotherham or Morton not supporting him. Rotherham was in the dog-house, and had been since he'd given the Great Seal to EW. Morton, as far as I know, wasn't deeply involved in Council affairs, although his support on the subject might have been welcomed. I don't really know how much authority Bourchier would have had over Stillington clerically speaking, but I imagine Stillington would have at least preferred to have a former Lord Chancellor on his side.

Doug

(Who apologizes for the delay  found a whole list of posts at the bottom of my Incoming that I'd missed)

Hilary wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another.




--
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: More Info on Forster

2019-09-21 12:03:15
Hilary Jones
Marie you may know the answer to this one. In the NA is a letter from Edward V to Bourchier asking him to remain in London. Herewith:
SC 1/45/236Description:

Letter from Edward V to [Thomas Bourchier], archbishop of Canterbury: requesting him to stay in London until his arrival. Signet. Dated at Northampton.

Date:[1483] May 2Now I know the NA can be wonky on their dates but Edward was never, as far as we know, at Northampton he was up the road at Stony Stratford. And if it was written by Rivers then it implies he had time to write it so was possibly there before Richard? H
On Saturday, 21 September 2019, 08:53:34 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And he was also the executor of Margaret Talbot's will i.e.that of EB and Elizabeth's mother. Perhaps this 'story' was better known in some quarters than we thought.
On Friday, 20 September 2019, 12:07:46 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi, I've just noticed (silly me) that Archbishop Bourchier was Elizabeth Talbot's uncle (by marriage). Now whether he knew her well, liked or disliked her, he would surely have consulted her re the Pre-Contract? And we know Elizabeth had her own grudges against Edward re the Norfolk lands. Puts a whole new complexion on things I reckon..
After all it was Bourchier who was going to have to 'do the job'. How could he in all conscience anoint someone he did not believe to be the true heir? And that applies to his anointing of Richard as well.. H

On Friday, 20 September 2019, 09:41:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice..
Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge.
Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity.
Like everything needs more work. H



On Thursday, 19 September 2019, 17:38:29 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,

I could be completely mistaken, but it seems to me that how Forster came to be employed by EW could very well be an excellent example of how, sometimes, the inter-relationships amongst people/families might help explain some point or other. In this case, Forster's first coming to the attention of EW and then entering her employment.

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?

FWIW, if it was Stillington who brought the Pre-Contract before the Council, and currently I don't see any other viable candidate, I don't think he'd have had to worry much about Rotherham or Morton not supporting him. Rotherham was in the dog-house, and had been since he'd given the Great Seal to EW. Morton, as far as I know, wasn't deeply involved in Council affairs, although his support on the subject might have been welcomed. I don't really know how much authority Bourchier would have had over Stillington clerically speaking, but I imagine Stillington would have at least preferred to have a former Lord Chancellor on his side.

Doug

(Who apologizes for the delay  found a whole list of posts at the bottom of my Incoming that I'd missed)

Hilary wrote:

One of the (few) positive things on writing on this period is that people usually act within the conventions of society; a lot of things are predictable - who they'll marry, what they'll do - which is why I think when we do find a solution to the 'Princes' thing (and we will) we'll say oh of course, not, I never dreamed of that. So that's why I think so many historians' 'cardboard people' are important. They're there for a reason.

Take John Forster. How did he get the job? Did he drop by at Westminster, did EW advertise? Conventionally who would she have gone to? Someone the Woodville family knew of course. And that's exactly who John Forster was.

I mentioned to Marie a few days' ago that I'd noticed that there were Mayors of Bristol called Forster and I thought they might be related. I was right. Stephen Forster, John's father, came from Stanton Drew Somerset - it's in his will. Stephen's elder brother, Richard, was Mayor of Bristol, as was his son, another Richard who died in 1481. They belonged to the same merchant class as the Chokkes and the Cheddars. Stephen had another brother, Thomas, also a Mercer, who spent his time mainly in London but had a son John in Bristol.

However, also with an interest in Long Ashton in Somerset(20 miles from Stanton Drew) at this time was EW's great uncle, Thomas Woodville (d.1435) Sheriff of Northants and Steward of the Central Circuit. He had married Elizabeth Lyons, co-heiress of Thomas Lyons the 'owner' of Long Ashton. The manor was held from the Bishop of Bath and Wells. Before his death he devised the manor to Richard Forster Senior and to John Cholke, father of Judge Richard Cholke, the guardian of the Hampton children, Stillington's grandchildren. In the Somerset Fines there are transactions regarding the manor between the Cholkes, F orsters and the Hamptons. In other words, by some peculiar co-incidence the Somerset Forsters were moving in the same circles as Bishop Stillington.- Twynyho, Newton, Cheddar, Talbot, Catesby.

To me this raises a question. If Stillington got his information from this area, and unless he got it from Father Ingleby, it's likely he did, then is it not possible that the Somerset Forsters would have come across it and passed it on to their cousin John, who does occasionally appear in Somerset deeds? And would Forster not also have passed it on to EW; which could explain the Woodville haste to get Edward crowned and Richard eliminated?

And we also come back to the role of Stillington. Whilst you were away Marie we did suggest that he might have been put in the Bath and Wells job to 'keep an eye on things' in what was deep Lancastrian territory. And of course, after 1471, there were also the antics of brother George. If it was him who did make an announcement about the PreContract (and we don't know for sure) then he certainly put himself out on a limb from people like Rotherham. One can only assume he'd consulted Bourchier and got his support; he could have found himself in the Tower again had Morton and Rotherham been more popular.

It is fascinating how these things go round in circles. You start at one thing and it leads you to another.




--
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: More Info on Forster

2019-09-21 12:30:14
mariewalsh2003
Re the letter from EV to Bourchier - I discussed it here very recently. I have a copy of it.
It's obviously really from Richard, just as the earlier letter from EV to Kings Lynn was most probably drafted by Rivers.
It's dated from Northampton, showing that More was correct in claiming Richard initially returned there with the King after Stony Stratford.
It's the one in which Bourchier is commanded to take charge of the Great Seal and the Tower treasure. I think the Archbishop of C had a constitutional role in a minority or interregnum but I stand to be corrected.

BTW as I'm away from all my notes and files, could you remind me of how the Cardinal is Eleanor's uncle-by-marriage? And why you think he would therefore have been aware of the Precontract?

Marie

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-21 14:31:54
Hilary Jones
Sorry but I just don't understand why Richard would go back to Northampton its's way off route. I must clearly have missed all this.
And of course I don't know whether Bourchier knew but it's another angle. And he was Executor of Margaret Talbot's will. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 2:24 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

His sister Eleanor was married to John Mowbray, father of the John Mowbray, ET's husband.
Sorry but I've never read your other reply before. New to me. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 12:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Re the letter from EV to Bourchier - I discussed it here very recently. I have a copy of it.
It's obviously really from Richard, just as the earlier letter from EV to Kings Lynn was most probably drafted by Rivers.
It's dated from Northampton, showing that More was correct in claiming Richard initially returned there with the King after Stony Stratford.
It's the one in which Bourchier is commanded to take charge of the Great Seal and the Tower treasure. I think the Archbishop of C had a constitutional role in a minority or interregnum but I stand to be corrected.

BTW as I'm away from all my notes and files, could you remind me of how the Cardinal is Eleanor's uncle-by-marriage? And why you think he would therefore have been aware of the Precontract?

Marie

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-21 14:44:49
Hilary Jones
His sister Eleanor was married to John Mowbray, father of the John Mowbray, ET's husband.
Sorry but I've never read your other reply before. New to me. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Saturday, September 21, 2019, 12:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Re the letter from EV to Bourchier - I discussed it here very recently. I have a copy of it.
It's obviously really from Richard, just as the earlier letter from EV to Kings Lynn was most probably drafted by Rivers.
It's dated from Northampton, showing that More was correct in claiming Richard initially returned there with the King after Stony Stratford.
It's the one in which Bourchier is commanded to take charge of the Great Seal and the Tower treasure. I think the Archbishop of C had a constitutional role in a minority or interregnum but I stand to be corrected.

BTW as I'm away from all my notes and files, could you remind me of how the Cardinal is Eleanor's uncle-by-marriage? And why you think he would therefore have been aware of the Precontract?

Marie

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-22 05:23:51
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Seemingly networking worked as well then as it's reputed to do now? It does appear as if family and work relationships can be useful in helping to explain actions for which we have no other evidence, but I'm still leery of placing too much emphasis on such relationships because it's well-known that members of the same family often drift apart and friendships fade. I guess what I'm trying to say is that simply because someone was related to, say, Eleanor Talbot, doesn't, in and of itself, necessarily explain any actions that person may have taken. OTOH, that relationship may very well be an excellent starting-off point for further investigations. The lack of the type of documentary evidence so available for later centuries, such as letters, diaries, biographies, autobiographies and even newspaper accounts certainly doesn't help! The Woodvilles do seem to be excellent examples of the Peter Principle don't they? Or, better still, many of today's celebrities. Bourchier's actions seem inexplicable if one views it through the prism of power politics. He was already as high as he could get in England (I doubt he ever considered the Papacy as a possibility). He almost appears to have been accepted as being above politics, being trusted by both Yorkists and Lancastrians. Even his relationship, by marriage, to Eleanor Talbot's sister Elizabeth (as you mentioned in a separate post) doesn't seem to have caused any problems. One thought did occur to me, however. We know Richard appointed Russell Lord Chancellor, even though Russell didn't want the job. So why did Richard go to such lengths to get Russell to be Lord Chancellor when someone who'd served in that position, Bourchier, was there on the scene? The thought did cross my mind that perhaps there was some fears that Bourchier's relationship to Elizabeth Talbot (and thus Eleanor) might affect his position on the Pre-Contract. However, he he was also likely 20 years older than Russell (Bourchier died in 1486), so could that have been it? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice.. Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge. Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity. Like everything needs more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-22 05:46:37
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, in Annette Carson's Maligned King, she wrote: Messages meanwhile kept the protector apprised of events in the capital, and by 2 May, prior to setting out for London... (my emphasis). Stony Stratford, while undoubtedly a charming village in the 15th century, almost certainly didn't have the accommodations offered by Northampton. Once Richard and his nephew were united, there wasn't any reason not to return to Northampton for a day or two before going on to London which, at a distance of around 60 miles, could easily be reached in a day's travel. Doug Hilary wrote: Marie you may know the answer to this one. In the NA is a letter from Edward V to Bourchier asking him to remain in London. Herewith: SC 1/45/236 Description:

Letter from Edward V to [Thomas Bourchier], archbishop of Canterbury: requesting him to stay in London until his arrival. Signet. Dated at Northampton.

Date: [1483] May 2 Now I know the NA can be wonky on their dates but Edward was never, as far as we know, at Northampton he was up the road at Stony Stratford. And if it was written by Rivers then it implies he had time to write it so was possibly there before Richard?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-22 10:08:49
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, Bourchier was only about 64 when he died (some fought at Bosworth at that age) but he had perhaps got to the point where there was nothing left to achieve. In fact he was perhaps the only person on the Council who had nothing to lose whatsoever, which is why his endorsement of Richard and the PreContract is very interesting. As we've said many times there is something sacred about the anointing and the anointed.
All of which tells me that Bourchier must have been convinced to take the steps he did; it wasn't power politics for him, it was about doing the right thing. And as uncle of Elizabeth and executor of her mother's will (during which time he could well have come into contact with Eleanor) I would have thought it likely that he would have had a conversation with her during the collection of 'evidence'. In fact isn't it strange that Stillington supposedly had the fit of conscience when Bourchier had every reason to have one at that point if he knew? H
On Sunday, 22 September 2019, 05:24:00 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Seemingly networking worked as well then as it's reputed to do now? It does appear as if family and work relationships can be useful in helping to explain actions for which we have no other evidence, but I'm still leery of placing too much emphasis on such relationships because it's well-known that members of the same family often drift apart and friendships fade. I guess what I'm trying to say is that simply because someone was related to, say, Eleanor Talbot, doesn't, in and of itself, necessarily explain any actions that person may have taken. OTOH, that relationship may very well be an excellent starting-off point for further investigations. The lack of the type of documentary evidence so available for later centuries, such as letters, diaries, biographies, autobiographies and even newspaper accounts certainly doesn't help! The Woodvilles do seem to be excellent examples of the Peter Principle don't they? Or, better still, many of today's celebrities. Bourchier's actions seem inexplicable if one views it through the prism of power politics. He was already as high as he could get in England (I doubt he ever considered the Papacy as a possibility). He almost appears to have been accepted as being above politics, being trusted by both Yorkists and Lancastrians. Even his relationship, by marriage, to Eleanor Talbot's sister Elizabeth (as you mentioned in a separate post) doesn't seem to have caused any problems. One thought did occur to me, however. We know Richard appointed Russell Lord Chancellor, even though Russell didn't want the job. So why did Richard go to such lengths to get Russell to be Lord Chancellor when someone who'd served in that position, Bourchier, was there on the scene? The thought did cross my mind that perhaps there was some fears that Bourchier's relationship to Elizabeth Talbot (and thus Eleanor) might affect his position on the Pre-Contract. However, he he was also likely 20 years older than Russell (Bourchier died in 1486), so could that have been it? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, re your first paragraph, I agree. From what I've seen through the centuries in wills there is often a relationship between overlords (for want of a better word) and their tenants - they don't have to have a blood relationship, though often they go on to do so down the years as things change. It's quite usual to use the 'overlord' as the executor of a will, for example, and you sometimes get thanks for a book or something which has been loaned. I suppose it's a bit like the relationship between the Head Butler and Lord So and So - think Downton if you know it. So the 'tenant' also adopts the politics and the manners of the boss to the extent of giving his children the same names and sending them to the same uni if he can. An awful lot of the people who were of the Stanley affinity, for example, did this - like Sir John Harpur who was father of Thomas More's second wife Alice.. Re your second paragraph, I just don't know. The Woodville family were so obviously lacking in strategic brains that it's difficult to judge. Interestingly, I was only thinking last night that Bourchier is my last 'cardboard character' - I need to do work on him. You see to get him on your side - Cardinal Archbishop, Primate of All England - is a very powerful achievement. And why, being of the blood, would he willingly disinherit his kin if there was any shadow of doubt about the PreContract? I don't recall him having any particular relationship with Richard, unlike Stillington who could have had the 'call' of coming from York and a possible Neville affinity. Like everything needs more work.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-22 10:39:47
Hilary Jones
Hi, I've now looked at JAH's very helpful daily catalogue of the reign of Edward V. So the letter below is the one about the Great Seal - it doesn't say so in the NA record below; it just says 'asking him to remain in London'? The day after it was written Edward was at St Albans Abbey from whence he went to the Bishop's palace in London on May 5. And the supposition that Edward and Richard spent the night in Northampton seems to come from this letter - I can find no other reference cited in JAH? I just don't know why they went North again to Northampton (15 miles) instead of pressing on to St Albans (34 miles) meaning they'd have to do an extra 25 miles overall dragging the 'weapons' with them when the Abbey could obviously have accommodated them. Would they have needed to have been there when the letter was written or could it have been signed in advance by a scrivener left in Northampton?
Sorry, still seems odd to me, as indeed it does to JAH. H

On Sunday, 22 September 2019, 05:46:42 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, FWIW, in Annette Carson's Maligned King, she wrote: Messages meanwhile kept the protector apprised of events in the capital, and by 2 May, prior to setting out for London... (my emphasis). Stony Stratford, while undoubtedly a charming village in the 15th century, almost certainly didn't have the accommodations offered by Northampton. Once Richard and his nephew were united, there wasn't any reason not to return to Northampton for a day or two before going on to London which, at a distance of around 60 miles, could easily be reached in a day's travel. Doug Hilary wrote: Marie you may know the answer to this one. In the NA is a letter from Edward V to Bourchier asking him to remain in London. Herewith: SC 1/45/236Description:

Letter from Edward V to [Thomas Bourchier], archbishop of Canterbury: requesting him to stay in London until his arrival. Signet. Dated at Northampton.

Date:[1483] May 2 Now I know the NA can be wonky on their dates but Edward was never, as far as we know, at Northampton he was up the road at Stony Stratford. And if it was written by Rivers then it implies he had time to write it so was possibly there before Richard?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 03:15:38
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, the Wikipedia article on Bourchier has his birth as being approximately c. 1411, which would make him 75 at his death in 1486. Don't know where the date came from. The article also describes him as becoming a decided Yorkist by 1459 and also finds Bourchier's actions in regards to Richard as a failure to live up to the Archbishop's sworn oath (supposedly given before the death of Edward IV) to be faithful to Edward V. When it comes to his post-1459 Yorkist tendencies, I do get the impression that supporting the Yorkists wasn't something Bourchier did for his own gain. He seems to have made every possible effort to reconcile both sides and finally broke with the Lancastrians when they, especially MoA, refused to abide by the agreement that made the Duke of York Henry VI's heir. What I find extremely interesting is that this was the first of two occasions when Bourchier supported the legal heir over the presumed heir; the second bing in June 1483. We don't know what proofs were offered to support the Pre-Contract, but it is interesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury would have been in a position to encourage (?) any of his relatives by marriage to come forward with whatever they might know about Edward's marriage to Eleanor. It's only my belief, but I don't think Stillington was involved in the marriage as that would have made resolving the problem very simple and straightforward. It would have been a case of Stillington saying I married them and that would have been that. If proofs' needed to be provided, and judged, that says to me that the marriage likely consisted Edward promising to marry Eleanor, followed by a consummation of the marriage vows. And again, in his position as Archbishop, Bourchier would be in a position to allow a priest who'd attended someone on their deathbed to repeat what they'd heard. I found this link interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Confessional_in_the_Catholic_Church especially this: Even where the seal of confession does not strictly apply  where there is no specific serious sin confessed for the purpose of receiving absolution  priests have a serious obligation not to cause scandal by the way they speak. Which brings me back to the idea that proofs offered may have been what a priest heard while giving someone absolution on their deathbed. Whether that person was Eleanor herself or possibly the priest to whom she'd confessed, I can't say. The simplest option, of course, would be the priest who'd heard Eleanor's final confession. Perhaps a confession that might have included a request for forgiveness for her weakness in not speaking out when Edward's marriage to EW was announced? The other possibility is that Bourchier may himself have been the recipient of some information garnered while acting as executor that he held onto until June 1483 and then brought it out to corroborate Stillington. Oh, for just one well-written, information-packed diary! Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, Bourchier was only about 64 when he died (some fought at Bosworth at that age) but he had perhaps got to the point where there was nothing left to achieve. In fact he was perhaps the only person on the Council who had nothing to lose whatsoever, which is why his endorsement of Richard and the PreContract is very interesting. As we've said many times there is something sacred about the anointing and the anointed.All of which tells me that Bourchier must have been convinced to take the steps he did; it wasn't power politics for him, it was about doing the right thing. And as uncle of Elizabeth and executor of her mother's will (during which time he could well have come into contact with Eleanor) I would have thought it likely that he would have had a conversation with her during the collection of 'evidence'. In fact isn't it strange that Stillington supposedly had the fit of conscience when Bourchier had every reason to have one at that point if he knew?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 03:57:55
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I got the following from Google: Northampton to St. Albans Abbey  45 miles (via M 1) St. Albans Abbey to London -- 24.5 miles (via M 1) Northampton to London -- 67.8 miles (via M 1) Richard arrested Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in Northampton on the morning of, I believe, 30 April. He then proceeded to Stony Stratford to met his nephew. That trip likely took 1-2 hours. If we presume the remainder of the morning was spent with Edward, there'd be plenty of time for a return to Northampton before dark. We also need to remember that it was the Woodvilles who wanted to get Edward to London ASAP to be crowned. AFAIK, no official date had yet been set for Edward's coronation, so there was no special need to hurry. We also need to remember that Edward was still in training so to speak and I don't doubt some of that time in Northampton was spent on some first lessons  reading messages to ensure they were accurate, for example. Possibly even suggestions about who was to be Lord Chancellor and how that letter should be composed? And while Edward was getting his first taste of the duties that being king brought with it, Richard would have been busy getting things arranged for their journey to London. I imagine Rivers and Grey had already been sent off under guard, and now Vaughan had to be taken care of as well. Then there'd still be all those Woodville retainers to be taken care of; most likely disarmed and sent home. Those wagons of weapons would require arrangements for their cartage, so that would need to be done as well. So Richard, Edward and Buckingham return to Northampton the afternoon of 30 April and remain there until departing for St. Albans Abbey on 4 May. While there, all sorts of business gets done, from arranging for wagons to cart weapons to appointing a Lord Chancellor. They spend the night of 4/5 May at St. Albans and enter London the afternoon of 5 May, with Edward going to the Bishop's Palace and Richard, I believe, to Baynard's Castle. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, I've now looked at JAH's very helpful daily catalogue of the reign of Edward V. So the letter below is the one about the Great Seal - it doesn't say so in the NA record below; it just says 'asking him to remain in London'? The day after it was written Edward was at St Albans Abbey from whence he went to the Bishop's palace in London on May 5. And the supposition that Edward and Richard spent the night in Northampton seems to come from this letter - I can find no other reference cited in JAH? I just don't know why they went North again to Northampton (15 miles) instead of pressing on to St Albans (34 miles) meaning they'd have to do an extra 25 miles overall dragging the 'weapons' with them when the Abbey could obviously have accommodated them. Would they have needed to have been there when the letter was written or could it have been signed in advance by a scrivener left in Northampton?Sorry, still seems odd to me, as indeed it does to JAH.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 08:13:57
Hilary Jones
I'm with JAH on this. Why go northwards? For a start it would mean going back through Woodville country. For Stony Stratford think Milton Keynes - they even speak with a London accent there. Why not make for Luton or Dunstable if you can't make St Albans? I really don't understand it. And to take Edward to the place where his uncle had been arrested .........H
On Monday, 23 September 2019, 03:59:55 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I got the following from Google: Northampton to St. Albans Abbey  45 miles (via M 1) St. Albans Abbey to London -- 24.5 miles (via M 1) Northampton to London -- 67.8 miles (via M 1) Richard arrested Rivers, Grey and Vaughan in Northampton on the morning of, I believe, 30 April. He then proceeded to Stony Stratford to met his nephew. That trip likely took 1-2 hours. If we presume the remainder of the morning was spent with Edward, there'd be plenty of time for a return to Northampton before dark. We also need to remember that it was the Woodvilles who wanted to get Edward to London ASAP to be crowned. AFAIK, no official date had yet been set for Edward's coronation, so there was no special need to hurry. We also need to remember that Edward was still in training so to speak and I don't doubt some of that time in Northampton was spent on some first lessons  reading messages to ensure they were accurate, for example. Possibly even suggestions about who was to be Lord Chancellor and how that letter should be composed? And while Edward was getting his first taste of the duties that being king brought with it, Richard would have been busy getting things arranged for their journey to London. I imagine Rivers and Grey had already been sent off under guard, and now Vaughan had to be taken care of as well. Then there'd still be all those Woodville retainers to be taken care of; most likely disarmed and sent home.. Those wagons of weapons would require arrangements for their cartage, so that would need to be done as well. So Richard, Edward and Buckingham return to Northampton the afternoon of 30 April and remain there until departing for St. Albans Abbey on 4 May. While there, all sorts of business gets done, from arranging for wagons to cart weapons to appointing a Lord Chancellor. They spend the night of 4/5 May at St. Albans and enter London the afternoon of 5 May, with Edward going to the Bishop's Palace and Richard, I believe, to Baynard's Castle. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi, I've now looked at JAH's very helpful daily catalogue of the reign of Edward V. So the letter below is the one about the Great Seal - it doesn't say so in the NA record below; it just says 'asking him to remain in London'? The day after it was written Edward was at St Albans Abbey from whence he went to the Bishop's palace in London on May 5. And the supposition that Edward and Richard spent the night in Northampton seems to come from this letter - I can find no other reference cited in JAH? I just don't know why they went North again to Northampton (15 miles) instead of pressing on to St Albans (34 miles) meaning they'd have to do an extra 25 miles overall dragging the 'weapons' with them when the Abbey could obviously have accommodated them. Would they have needed to have been there when the letter was written or could it have been signed in advance by a scrivener left in Northampton?Sorry, still seems odd to me, as indeed it does to JAH.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 16:08:42
mariewalsh2003
Hi Hilary,
What happened at Stony Stratford were emergency measures - unless it was all a plot by Richard as per the Tudor sources. So before careering on down to London with the new King he needed to take stock, gather more intelligence and take steps to secure his position.
The prisoners were initially returned to Northampton with him, and I imagine Richard had questions for them and only when he knew more decided to send them up to separate castles in the North.
The instructions to cardinal Bourchier must surely have arisen out of what he'd learned in those two days, either from Rivers, Vaughan and Grey (particularly the last ) or from friends in London, and he must have set out south with the King quite fast after getting that letter dispatched.
Marie

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 16:15:41
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Perhaps it wasn't simply a question of being able to reach St. Albans? As I mentioned, it was the Woodvilles who were in a hurry to get Edward to London, not Richard. Northampton was, if I recall correctly, the place where Richard and Rivers had agreed to meet. There would have been plenty of accommodations for everyone, including Richard's and Buckingham's retainers, so why not return to Northampton? Richard and Buckingham had once already ridden the route from Northampton to Stony Stratford safely, which tells me that the risk of being ambushed had evaporated with Rivers' arrest. The arrest occurred, I believe, the first thing on the morning of 30 April, so it's even possible that those who were supposed to have participated in the ambush were with Rivers in Northampton when he was arrested. FWIW, I wonder if we haven't been mislead by the word ambush? I know when I see that word I think of people lying in wait to attack someone, but what if the ambush was to be carried out by Woodville retainers accompanying Richard and Buckingham? Almost all of those who'd accompanied Richard from York would have remained in Northampton, as would most of those who'd accompanied Buckingham from wherever he'd started from. IOW, Richard's and Buckingham's escort would have consisted of Woodville retainers. Who would be in a better position to ambush someone that the very people who were supposedly guarding them? Perhaps we should substitute attack for ambush? We know the arrests came prior to their departure; so once Rivers and Grey were arrested, who was there to tell the bandits to carry on with the plan? In other words, without the head (River and/or Grey), the body (the retainers assigned to carry out the ambush) didn't (couldn't?) do anything more. Plus, there'd be quite a lot to do at Northampton. All those Woodville retainers needed to be disarmed and dispersed, with possibly some names taken for future reference? It's also my understanding that the majority of the Woodville forces were at Northampton, Edward being guarded by a detachment. So, or so it seems to me, Northampton would be where all the weapons were that Richard later had loaded onto carts and then brought with him to London. I believe the carts arrived in London when Richard and Edward did, so that would mean the speed of the journey would have been slowed; horses with riders alone would almost certainly be able to go at a faster pace than riders accompanied by weapons-filled carts pulled by either horses or oxen. At any rate, arrangements would have to be made in Northampton to hire carts and load them with the weapons taken from the Woodville retainers. That alone would take some time. Frankly, I tend to think Edward's emotions would have been more involved when Vaughan was arrested  at Stony Stratford, I believe. After all, Edward knew Vaughan, they lived together in Wales, likely saw each other, if not every day, then regularly, and it was Vaughan, not Rivers, who'd accompanied Edward from Wales. Doug Hilary wrote: I'm with JAH on this. Why go northwards? For a start it would mean going back through Woodville country. For Stony Stratford think Milton Keynes - they even speak with a London accent there. Why not make for Luton or Dunstable if you can't make St Albans? I really don't understand it. And to take Edward to the place where his uncle had been arrested .........
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 21:29:09
mariewalsh2003
Justin couple of things here that make a difference. According to all sources, Vaughan and Grey were found with the King at Stony Stratford and arrested there.
Regarding Rivers, there are different accounts. I don't have access to notes or sources, but Crowland has Rivers arrested either as Richard, Buckingham and himself approached Stony Stratford or in the town itself. I think the version that has become tradition, which has Rivers placed under house arrest at Northampton the night before, originates with More.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-23 21:39:02
mariewalsh2003
P.S. Richard and EV reached London on 4 May.

P. P.S. There's a problem, I think, in putting any ambush plan down entirely to the forces with Rivers, and that is that it doesn't provide a particularly strong justification for the arrests of Vaughan and Grey, still less their eventual executions.

P.P.P.S. Sorry if I sounded a bit crotchety Sunday.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-24 23:32:03
Doug Stamate
Marie,
This is in reply to your posts dated 4:39 PM and 4:58 PM 9/23/19 (I hope the
dates are the same on your copies!).
I've discovered where I've been getting some of my misconceptions about who
was where - from Audrey Williamson's "The Mystery of the Princes"! She
wrote:
"A meeting with Rivers, Grey and others of the king's party was arranged.
But at this meeting the young king himself was conspicuously absent. He had
been sent ahead by his relatives to Stony Stratford." From this I made the
presumption that if Rivers and Grey weren't at Stony Stratford, they must
have been at Northampton. Williamson goes on to say that Richard, after
meeting up with Buckingham at Northampton on 29 April "...acted with his
customary swift decision in a crisis. The following morning [30 April]
Rivers, Grey and Vaughan were arrested and judiciously parted." Again, no
specific mention of where the arrests occurred.
FWIW, while looking up other references to Rivers in the book, I also came
across this:
"Apart from Richard Grey, the Queen's younger son by her first marriage, who
was with Rivers and the young king in Wales..." so apparently that's where I
got the idea that Rivers accompanied Edward on his journey from Wales.
Williamson did wonder why EW would address a letter to her son and not
Rivers, but if Rivers wasn't with Edward in Wales, it makes perfect sense.
My only excuse is that as her book was my introduction to to all this,
apparently I've filed away what I'd read and taken it as the basis, more of
less, for further investigation. Even so, with all the information that's
been garnered and disseminated via this forum, I really should have realized
better!
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Justin couple of things here that make a difference. According to all
sources, Vaughan and Grey were found with the King at Stony Stratford and
arrested there.
Regarding Rivers, there are different accounts. I don't have access to notes
or sources, but Crowland has Rivers arrested either as Richard, Buckingham
and himself approached Stony Stratford or in the town itself. I think the
version that has become tradition, which has Rivers placed under house
arrest at Northampton the night before, originates with More."




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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-30 10:42:39
Hilary Jones
Sorry Doug, I'm working backwards through last week.
I agree about the 'ambush' thing. You see an ambush, in sort of Robin Hood terminology, involves a lot of risks, unless you greatly outnumber the party you're ambushing. There's no guarantee you're going to get the intended victims straight away, others can escape and raise the alarm - or tell the truth later. And I doubt at this point that Rivers/Grey knew the size of what they were up against. They were also up against the most seasoned soldier in the country, which would rather have made Rivers' knees buckle.
I think if I were going to do the deed it would be easier in a confined space - like a dining room. The Italians were very good at that! Then you could make up all sorts of stories before the 'bodies' were revealed. H
On Monday, 23 September 2019, 16:19:28 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Perhaps it wasn't simply a question of being able to reach St. Albans? As I mentioned, it was the Woodvilles who were in a hurry to get Edward to London, not Richard. Northampton was, if I recall correctly, the place where Richard and Rivers had agreed to meet. There would have been plenty of accommodations for everyone, including Richard's and Buckingham's retainers, so why not return to Northampton? Richard and Buckingham had once already ridden the route from Northampton to Stony Stratford safely, which tells me that the risk of being ambushed had evaporated with Rivers' arrest. The arrest occurred, I believe, the first thing on the morning of 30 April, so it's even possible that those who were supposed to have participated in the ambush were with Rivers in Northampton when he was arrested. FWIW, I wonder if we haven't been mislead by the word ambush? I know when I see that word I think of people lying in wait to attack someone, but what if the ambush was to be carried out by Woodville retainers accompanying Richard and Buckingham? Almost all of those who'd accompanied Richard from York would have remained in Northampton, as would most of those who'd accompanied Buckingham from wherever he'd started from. IOW, Richard's and Buckingham's escort would have consisted of Woodville retainers. Who would be in a better position to ambush someone that the very people who were supposedly guarding them? Perhaps we should substitute attack for ambush? We know the arrests came prior to their departure; so once Rivers and Grey were arrested, who was there to tell the bandits to carry on with the plan? In other words, without the head (River and/or Grey), the body (the retainers assigned to carry out the ambush) didn't (couldn't?) do anything more. Plus, there'd be quite a lot to do at Northampton. All those Woodville retainers needed to be disarmed and dispersed, with possibly some names taken for future reference? It's also my understanding that the majority of the Woodville forces were at Northampton, Edward being guarded by a detachment. So, or so it seems to me, Northampton would be where all the weapons were that Richard later had loaded onto carts and then brought with him to London. I believe the carts arrived in London when Richard and Edward did, so that would mean the speed of the journey would have been slowed; horses with riders alone would almost certainly be able to go at a faster pace than riders accompanied by weapons-filled carts pulled by either horses or oxen. At any rate, arrangements would have to be made in Northampton to hire carts and load them with the weapons taken from the Woodville retainers. That alone would take some time. Frankly, I tend to think Edward's emotions would have been more involved when Vaughan was arrested  at Stony Stratford, I believe. After all, Edward knew Vaughan, they lived together in Wales, likely saw each other, if not every day, then regularly, and it was Vaughan, not Rivers, who'd accompanied Edward from Wales. Doug Hilary wrote: I'm with JAH on this. Why go northwards? For a start it would mean going back through Woodville country. For Stony Stratford think Milton Keynes - they even speak with a London accent there. Why not make for Luton or Dunstable if you can't make St Albans? I really don't understand it. And to take Edward to the place where his uncle had been arrested .........
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-09-30 21:06:40
mariewalsh2003


To come at this from a different angle again, what puzzles me is why, with both Grafton and the royal castle of More End in the immediate vicinity, why would Edward V and his entourage have spent the night in the town of Stony Stratford?


More End was certainly used on royal progresses. Edward IV had stayed there and Henry VII would as well.


Could it be that Edward V was only in Stony Stratford because he was already on his way?


Could Rivers have been sent to bring Richard and Buckingham to Grafton, on the pretext of joining the King but actually in order to remove them from the equation?



Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 10:24:56
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, I didn't know about Moor End till now when I looked it up. You know you're absolutely right. Yardley Gobion is vitually on the A5 and in fact one back road from there, as Doug pointed out a few months' ago, leads to Grafton Regis. So why take Edward to a town when he could have had the overnight security of a castle? I think we also asked at that point why not Grafton Regis, but a castle is even better.
I take your point about 'tidying things up' in Northampton, that's reasonable, but if I'd been at Stony Stratford I'd have pressed on through Bedfordshire to Luton which is only 25 miles away, where the route is so much more open, rather than the windy lanes of Northamptonshire which are perfect for further ambushes. So do we know whether Rivers and Grey were actually arrested together, or whether Grey arrived separately a bit later?
Incidentally would Edward have been staying at Moor End when he met EW? H
On Monday, 30 September 2019, 21:08:14 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


To come at this from a different angle again, what puzzles me is why, with both Grafton and the royal castle of More End in the immediate vicinity, why would Edward V and his entourage have spent the night in the town of Stony Stratford?


More End was certainly used on royal progresses. Edward IV had stayed there and Henry VII would as well.


Could it be that Edward V was only in Stony Stratford because he was already on his way?


Could Rivers have been sent to bring Richard and Buckingham to Grafton, on the pretext of joining the King but actually in order to remove them from the equation?



Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 16:09:07
Doug Stamate
Hilary, It sorts of looks as if the ambush theory is a non-starter going by the information Marie provided, especially the link to that article by Mr. Smith. If I correctly understand what Mr. Smith wrote, the probable scenario was simply to overwhelm the two Dukes as they rode to meet Edward at Stony Stratford. I've mentioned before my lack of knowledge of Royal protocol, but it does seem sensible that what Rivers planned was based on the presumption that Richard and Buckingham wouldn't be accompanied by their entire retinues but, instead, only 10-20 attendants each. If that was the plan, then I think we're back to a modified version of what I proposed a while back, with Richard and Buckingham riding southwards and either being sandwiched between two groups of Rivers' men or simply being faced with those men at some point where it would be nigh impossible for Richard and Buckingham to take off cross-country. From what I understand of the country-side in that area, there'd have been several such spots. FWIW, I think the main reason for a modified ambush (can't think of better term) as opposed to killing/capturing Richard and Buckingham while they were, say, dining with Rivers is the unlikelihood of Richard sitting down to dine with Rivers without there being as least as many of Richard's men nearby as there were of Rivers' men. Then there's also the danger being in such a locale might have posed to Rivers. Trying to take Richard  dead or alive  in a crowded room left too much to chance; OTOH, using over-whelming force when one's opponent wasn't, presumably, expecting it... Doug Hilary wrote: Sorry Doug, I'm working backwards through last week. I agree about the 'ambush' thing.. You see an ambush, in sort of Robin Hood terminology, involves a lot of risks, unless you greatly outnumber the party you're ambushing. There's no guarantee you're going to get the intended victims straight away, others can escape and raise the alarm - or tell the truth later. And I doubt at this point that Rivers/Grey knew the size of what they were up against. They were also up against the most seasoned soldier in the country, which would rather have made Rivers' knees buckle. I think if I were going to do the deed it would be easier in a confined space - like a dining room. The Italians were very good at that! Then you could make up all sorts of stories before the 'bodies' were revealed.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 16:20:50
Hilary Jones
We agree! The advantages that the Grafton Road has is that Grafton itself is perched on a hilltop. You could see for a mile or so what if any entourage Richard and Buckingham had with them. But it must have been SO pesky that Buckingham had turned up. It made every move much less certain. H
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, 16:09:11 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, It sorts of looks as if the ambush theory is a non-starter going by the information Marie provided, especially the link to that article by Mr. Smith. If I correctly understand what Mr. Smith wrote, the probable scenario was simply to overwhelm the two Dukes as they rode to meet Edward at Stony Stratford. I've mentioned before my lack of knowledge of Royal protocol, but it does seem sensible that what Rivers planned was based on the presumption that Richard and Buckingham wouldn't be accompanied by their entire retinues but, instead, only 10-20 attendants each. If that was the plan, then I think we're back to a modified version of what I proposed a while back, with Richard and Buckingham riding southwards and either being sandwiched between two groups of Rivers' men or simply being faced with those men at some point where it would be nigh impossible for Richard and Buckingham to take off cross-country. From what I understand of the country-side in that area, there'd have been several such spots. FWIW, I think the main reason for a modified ambush (can't think of better term) as opposed to killing/capturing Richard and Buckingham while they were, say, dining with Rivers is the unlikelihood of Richard sitting down to dine with Rivers without there being as least as many of Richard's men nearby as there were of Rivers' men. Then there's also the danger being in such a locale might have posed to Rivers. Trying to take Richard  dead or alive  in a crowded room left too much to chance; OTOH, using over-whelming force when one's opponent wasn't, presumably, expecting it... Doug Hilary wrote: Sorry Doug, I'm working backwards through last week. I agree about the 'ambush' thing.. You see an ambush, in sort of Robin Hood terminology, involves a lot of risks, unless you greatly outnumber the party you're ambushing. There's no guarantee you're going to get the intended victims straight away, others can escape and raise the alarm - or tell the truth later. And I doubt at this point that Rivers/Grey knew the size of what they were up against. They were also up against the most seasoned soldier in the country, which would rather have made Rivers' knees buckle. I think if I were going to do the deed it would be easier in a confined space - like a dining room. The Italians were very good at that! Then you could make up all sorts of stories before the 'bodies' were revealed.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 16:54:04
Doug Stamate
Marie, All I can say is that your four questions certainly provoke more! I have to say, though, that I'm still inclined to think Edward spent the night at Stony Stratford and was waiting for Rivers to join his party. The main reason for my continued belief is that I would imagine Rivers wouldn't want Edward anywhere near what was planned for Richard and Buckingham. If, after capturing/killing Richard and Buckingham, Rivers was to ride to Stony Stratford and inform Edward that a plot against the new king had been discovered, the plotters were Richard and Buckingham and they had been captured/killed to prevent them from carrying out their plot, Edward would have absolutely no other source/s of information as to what actually did happen. Possibly even more important, Rivers may have not unnaturally expected that Edward's estimation of him would receive a boost, further cementing in Edward's mind that Rivers was someone to be trusted. Doug

Marie wrote:

To come at this from a different angle again, what puzzles me is why, with both Grafton and the royal castle of More End in the immediate vicinity, why would Edward V and his entourage have spent the night in the town of Stony Stratford?

More End was certainly used on royal progresses. Edward IV had stayed there and Henry VII would as well.

Could it be that Edward V was only in Stony Stratford because he was already on his way?

Could Rivers have been sent to bring Richard and Buckingham to Grafton, on the pretext of joining the King but actually in order to remove them from the equation?


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 18:01:24
Doug Stamate
Hilary, FWIW, currently I'm working with the presumption that Rivers' plan, whether to kill or capture Richard doesn't much matter, was designed solely to prevent Richard from meeting with Edward. Once that plan failed, Rivers' only option that I can see would have been to launch his men against those accompanying Richard, Buckingham and King Edward V. Whether the attack was head-on or another hastily-arranged ambush, Rivers would still have been in the position of attacking the party of his nephew, the King. Even if Rivers' intent wasn't to harm Edward, but rather rescue him, if anything went wrong and Edward was harmed... Which, I think, is why once Richard took custody of his nephew, Rivers basically gave up. Richard had Edward; Grey and Vaughan were in custody, and the only way to regain custody of Edward likely involved quite a bit of risk to the young king; a risk I don't think Rivers wanted to take. If I understand Mr. Smith's article correctly, Richard, Buckingham and Edward weren't at Stony Stratford when they met up with Rivers, but likely met him on their way back to Northampton. This would have put Rivers in a bind; were those men accompanying Richard and Buckingham (and Edward!) all the men available to Richard, or were there more en route from Northampton? IOW, was Rivers about to be faced with a possible attack on both his front and his rear? It's all conjecture, of course but, as there doesn't seem to have been many of Rivers/Grey's men with Edward at Stony Stratford, I suspect Rivers was accompanied by almost all of the men he'd gathered. If Richard and Buckingham were accompanied by most of the men they'd brought with them, Rivers would have been faced by a force roughly half the size of his own, but in a location where his greater numbers likely wouldn't have mattered much (all those wooded hills, narrow roads, hedged fields). While excellent for employing an over-whelming force against a small group of men with few attendants, the terrain certainly wasn't suited for deploying 1-2000 men against a force half that size. I wouldn't be surprised if the make-up of the procession wasn't a few men in front, followed by Richard, Edward, Buckingham and a few retainers, the prisoners closely accompanied by more retainers and then the rest of Richard and Buckingham's troops. If what I've proposed is anywhere near what did happen, then I can easily see Rivers taking one look and deciding the game was up. The best reason I can think of for returning to Northampton is that, compared to either Stony Stratford or Luton, it was a town of considerable size, had been the site of several Parliaments and held several abbeys where accommodations could be had for Richard and Buckingham's retainers. Once the Woodville retainers had been dispersed, or joined up with Richard's party, and Rivers, Grey and Vaughan dispatched to house arrest in the North, a quick exchange of messengers between Northampton and London could be arranged with an update/exchange of news  such as had there been any known departures of Woodvilles adherents and if not, prevent them from leaving. IOW, having upset one Woodville, it would be better to go to ground, so to speak, for a day or two and then resume the journey to London. Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Marie, I didn't know about Moor End till now when I looked it up. You know you're absolutely right. Yardley Gobion is vitually on the A5 and in fact one back road from there, as Doug pointed out a few months' ago, leads to Grafton Regis. So why take Edward to a town when he could have had the overnight security of a castle? I think we also asked at that point why not Grafton Regis, but a castle is even better. I take your point about 'tidying things up' in Northampton, that's reasonable, but if I'd been at Stony Stratford I'd have pressed on through Bedfordshire to Luton which is only 25 miles away, where the route is so much more open, rather than the windy lanes of Northamptonshire which are perfect for further ambushes. So do we know whether Rivers and Grey were actually arrested together, or whether Grey arrived separately a bit later? Incidentally would Edward have been staying at Moor End when he met EW?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 18:24:40
Stephen
Rather like the Welles rescue from the Tower later?

Your hypothesis has Edward V, at least until the pre-contract was exposed, replaced by a brother almost three years younger, who knew his uncle Gloucester better but not his uncle Rivers, was brought up more in London than Ludlow, would wait three years longer to attain his majority...

It sounds like a complete own goal.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 01 October 2019 18:01
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

 
 
 
 
 
Hilary,
FWIW, currently I'm working with the presumption that Rivers' plan, whether to kill or capture Richard doesn't much matter, was designed solely to prevent Richard from meeting with Edward. Once that plan failed, Rivers' only option that I can see would have been to launch his men against those accompanying Richard, Buckingham and King Edward V. Whether the attack was head-on or another hastily-arranged ambush, Rivers would still have been in the position of attacking the party of his nephew, the King. Even if Rivers' intent wasn't to harm Edward, but rather rescue him, if anything went wrong and Edward was harmed...
Which, I think, is why once Richard took custody of his nephew, Rivers basically gave up. Richard had Edward; Grey and Vaughan were in custody, and the only way to regain custody of Edward likely involved quite a bit of risk to the young king; a risk I don't think Rivers wanted to take.
If I understand Mr. Smith's article correctly, Richard, Buckingham and Edward weren't at Stony Stratford when they met up with Rivers, but likely met him on their way back to Northampton. This would have put Rivers in a bind; were those men accompanying Richard and Buckingham (and Edward!) all the men available to Richard, or were there more en route from Northampton? IOW, was Rivers about to be faced with a possible attack on both his front and his rear? It's all conjecture, of course but, as there doesn't seem to have been many of Rivers/Grey's men with Edward at Stony Stratford, I suspect Rivers was accompanied by almost all of the men he'd gathered. If Richard and Buckingham were accompanied by most of the men they'd brought with them, Rivers would have been faced by a force roughly half the size of his own, but in a location where his greater numbers likely wouldn't have mattered much (all those wooded hills, narrow roads, hedged fields). While excellent for employing an over-whelming force against a small group of men with few attendants, the terrain certainly wasn't suited for deploying 1-2000 men against a force half that size. I wouldn't be surprised if the make-up of the procession wasn't a few men in front, followed by Richard, Edward, Buckingham and a few retainers, the prisoners closely accompanied by more retainers and then the rest of Richard and Buckingham's troops.
If what I've proposed is anywhere near what did happen, then I can easily see Rivers taking one look and deciding the game was up.
The best reason I can think of for returning to Northampton is that, compared to either Stony Stratford or Luton, it was a town of considerable size, had been the site of several Parliaments and held several abbeys where accommodations could be had for Richard and Buckingham's retainers. Once the Woodville retainers had been dispersed, or joined up with Richard's party, and Rivers, Grey and Vaughan dispatched to house arrest in the North, a quick exchange of messengers between Northampton and London could be arranged with an update/exchange of news  such as had there been any known departures of Woodvilles adherents and if not, prevent them from leaving. IOW, having upset one Woodville, it would be better to go to ground, so to speak, for a day or two and then resume the journey to London.
Doug
 
Hilary wrote:
Hi Marie, I didn't know about Moor End till now when I looked it up. You know you're absolutely right. Yardley Gobion is vitually on the A5 and in fact one back road from there, as Doug pointed out a few months' ago, leads to Grafton Regis. So why take Edward to a town when he could have had the overnight security of a castle? I think we also asked at that point why not Grafton Regis, but a castle is even better.
I take your point about 'tidying things up' in Northampton, that's reasonable, but if I'd been at Stony Stratford I'd have pressed on through Bedfordshire to Luton which is only 25 miles away, where the route is so much more open, rather than the windy lanes of Northamptonshire which are perfect for further ambushes. So do we know whether Rivers and Grey were actually arrested together, or whether Grey arrived separately a bit later?
Incidentally would Edward have been staying at Moor End when he met EW?
 

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




Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 18:37:25
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Do we know with any amount of certainty from where Buckingham set out? I originally thought it was Brecon, but then there were his properties near Atherstone. According to that article by Mr. Smith, Buckingham had a manor at, where else, Buckingham which is 20 miles from Northampton and seven miles from Stony Stratford. At a walk the trip from Northampton to Buckingham would take, I presume, about four hours; and from Buckingham to Stony Stratford another hour or a bit more. However, how long would those trips take at a gallop? I ask because the thought crossed my mind that, while we have references to the number of men that accompanied Buckingham, we don't know how many he may have summoned to meet him as he made his way to London. I don't know whether it matters if Buckingham originally departed from Brecon or near Atherstone, because if he left from either his whereabouts would have been known to Vaughan and, presumably, passed on to Rivers. If, OTOH, Buckingham didn't show up at all until the royal party had reached/passed the turn-off to Northampton, I definitely agree his turning up may have thrown everything off. Another possibility is that Buckingham may have had another substantial number of retainers gathered at Buckingham in order to join with him as he passed by (sort of, anyway), thus making his entry into London that much more awe-inspiring? Which means that Richard might have been in the position of being able to leave several hundred men behind in Northampton while he, Buckingham and the remainder galloped off to be met by the rest of Buckingham's retainers on their way to Stony Stratford. Just a thought... Doug Hilary wrote: We agree! The advantages that the Grafton Road has is that Grafton itself is perched on a hilltop. You could see for a mile or so what if any entourage Richard and Buckingham had with them. But it must have been SO pesky that Buckingham had turned up. It made every move much less certain.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-01 20:58:45
mariewalsh2003
One of Buckingham's most used residences was Maxstoke Castle, 43 miles by road WNW of Northampton (tother side of Coventry), but we don't know where he actually was.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 09:29:38
Hilary Jones
He also had a residence in East Anglia, the name of which escapes me for the moment (age!), which had recently been refurbished at great cost by his grandmother. Would be interesting if both he and Rivers were coming from the same direction. H
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, 21:05:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

One of Buckingham's most used residences was Maxstoke Castle, 43 miles by road WNW of Northampton (tother side of Coventry), but we don't know where he actually was.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 11:10:19
Hilary Jones
Sorry Kimbolton of course H
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 09:29:42 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He also had a residence in East Anglia, the name of which escapes me for the moment (age!), which had recently been refurbished at great cost by his grandmother. Would be interesting if both he and Rivers were coming from the same direction. H
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, 21:05:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

One of Buckingham's most used residences was Maxstoke Castle, 43 miles by road WNW of Northampton (tother side of Coventry), but we don't know where he actually was.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 13:23:26
Bale PAUL
Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!Loyal to and supportive of you still!
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...


On 2 Oct 2019, at 10:29, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He also had a residence in East Anglia, the name of which escapes me for the moment (age!), which had recently been refurbished at great cost by his grandmother. Would be interesting if both he and Rivers were coming from the same direction. H
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019, 21:05:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

One of Buckingham's most used residences was Maxstoke Castle, 43 miles by road WNW of Northampton (tother side of Coventry), but we don't know where he actually was.



Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 15:58:17
Doug Stamate
Stephen,
Well, IF Rivers had decided to carry out the original plan regardless of
what might happen to the young king, yes.
I rather think, though, that the good Earl decided at the sight of Edward,
likely riding between Gloucester and Buckingham, that that game was up.
For one thing, there'd have been all those witnesses - and not all of them
"friendly"...
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"Rather like the Welles rescue from the Tower later?
Your hypothesis has Edward V, at least until the pre-contract was exposed,
replaced by a brother almost three years younger, who knew his uncle
Gloucester better but not his uncle Rivers, was brought up more in London
than Ludlow, would wait three years longer to attain his majority...
It sounds like a complete own goal."





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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 16:07:39
Doug Stamate
Marie, Good grief! So Buckingham could have started from Brecon, his manor just off Watling Street, this place, his manor at Buckingham or some other place as yet to be determined? I don't suppose there's any chance he filed for travel expenses, is there? A thought: Perhaps, if her sister was just down the road, EW's attentions to Coventry weren't just on her son's behalf, then? Doug Marie wrote: One of Buckingham's most used residences was Maxstoke Castle, 43 miles by road WNW of Northampton (tother side of Coventry), but we don't know where he actually was.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 16:12:13
Doug Stamate
Hilary, So we're now up to at least five manors where Buckingham was noted to have spent time! I wonder if it's important that they all seem to be northwest or north of London? Didn't he have any south of the capital? Doug Hilary wrote: He also had a residence in East Anglia, the name of which escapes me for the moment (age!), which had recently been refurbished at great cost by his grandmother. Would be interesting if both he and Rivers were coming from the same direction.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 16:16:31
Doug Stamate
I'll be raising a pint tonight! Doug Paul wrote: Well if nobody else is going to do it I will' Happy 567th Birthday King Richard! Loyal to and supportive of you still!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 17:30:16
Pamela Bain

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 17:54:40
Johanne Tournier

I'll drink to that!! 😊

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 17:59:52
Pamela Bain
I knew I could count on you!
On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

I'll drink to that!! =

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 19:06:43
Johanne Tournier

Likewise, I'm sure! 😊

It's a great day for Ricardians!

Johanne

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:59:50 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I knew I could count on you!
On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

I'll drink to that!! =

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 19:36:16
Hilary Jones
I'm having a G & T. London of course! H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019, 5:59 pm, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I knew I could count on you!
On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

I'll drink to that!! =

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!


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

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-02 21:19:20
bale.paul-trevor@...
The wine here in the south if France is wonderful. So much choice. A glass from a number of different ones today celebrating..........


Richard liveth yet! Le 2 oct. 2019 à 20:06 +0200, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <>, a écrit :

Likewise, I'm sure! =

 

It's a great day for Ricardians!

 

Johanne

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:59:50 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster    

I knew I could count on you! 
On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

 

I'll drink to that!! =

 

Loyaulte me lie,

 

Johanne

 

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster    

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

 

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

 

 

 

 

 

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

 

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!

 

 


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

Thomas Penn

2019-10-03 19:16:34
bale.paul-trevor@...
A new book by the author of The Winter King has just been published. The Brothers York : an English Tragedy. Will be interesting to see how he deals with Richard. In his Henry book he managed to let the reader know that no matter how he has to admire how Henry stayed on the throne, he really didn't like him at all. It is hard to write about somebody you do not like! Let's hope he has taken to Richard. Paul



Richard liveth yet! Le 2 oct. 2019 à 22:19 +0200, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <>, a écrit :

The wine here in the south if France is wonderful. So much choice. A glass from a number of different ones today celebrating...........


Richard liveth yet! Le 2 oct. 2019 à 20:06 +0200, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <>, a écrit :

Likewise, I'm sure! =

 

It's a great day for Ricardians!

 

Johanne

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:59:50 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster    

I knew I could count on you! 
On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:54 AM, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> wrote:

 

I'll drink to that!! =

 

Loyaulte me lie,

 

Johanne

 

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: <> on behalf of Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 1:29:51 PM
To: <>
Subject: RE: More Info on Forster    

And I a glass of wine!

Merci, Paul

 

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10:16 AM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

 

 

 

 

 

I'll be raising a pint tonight!

Doug

 

Paul wrote:

Well if nobody else is going to do it I will'

Happy 567th Birthday King Richard!

Loyal to and supportive of you still!

 

 


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] More Info on Forster

2019-10-04 10:28:50
Hilary Jones
Doug, I do recall from Jones & Underwood that he did visit MB at least a couple of times at her home at Guildford - which of course belonged to the Staffords. H
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 16:12:18 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, So we're now up to at least five manors where Buckingham was noted to have spent time! I wonder if it's important that they all seem to be northwest or north of London? Didn't he have any south of the capital? Doug Hilary wrote: He also had a residence in East Anglia, the name of which escapes me for the moment (age!), which had recently been refurbished at great cost by his grandmother. Would be interesting if both he and Rivers were coming from the same direction.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-04 12:09:23
eva.pitter@ymail.com
I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-04 12:20:15
Hilary Jones
Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-04 12:29:02
Bale PAUL
Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-04 13:22:25
Hilary Jones
My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory. And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-05 00:38:40
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I'm a bit confused. Do you mean MB had a house at Guidlford, owned by the Staffords? Or rather that Guildford itself was part of some grant to the Staffords? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I do recall from Jones & Underwood that he did visit MB at least a couple of times at her home at Guildford - which of course belonged to the Staffords.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-05 10:20:18
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, remember MB's second husband was Buck's uncle, Henry Stafford. It was his house and she kept it till son HT took it off her, to her great chagrin. She promptly took it back after he died :) :) H
On Saturday, 5 October 2019, 00:38:58 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I'm a bit confused. Do you mean MB had a house at Guidlford, owned by the Staffords? Or rather that Guildford itself was part of some grant to the Staffords? Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, I do recall from Jones & Underwood that he did visit MB at least a couple of times at her home at Guildford - which of course belonged to the Staffords.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-05 17:52:27
Pamela Bain

Another wonderful idea!

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 1:36 PM
To:
Subject: Re: More Info on Forster

I'm having a G & T. London of course! H


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 12:05:46
Hilary Jones
He we go 'according to More' .........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'! H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory. And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale..paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 12:26:41
Hilary Jones
And Marie will love this...
Buckingham had been writing to the young king at Ludlow (really where are the letters?). He rode to join Rivers 'out of the west country'. Young Edward's party skirted Northampton because it was 'not big enough to hold both Richard and Buckingham's retinues'. The young King got fed up with waiting so he sent Rivers and Grey over to Northampton to have dinner with Richard (and Buckingham who had yet to turn up). Oh and the 'plot' to arrest Rivers and Grey had been devised with Richard by --- Hastings, who had influence in Northampton which had 'seen better days'.
I really want to burn this book. It even makes you appreciate the scholarship of Ross and dare, I say it Hicks, even if they have their 'anti' rant, and it insults all or us who try to scratch for the truth. Why didn't he just write a novel?
I do hope the Society attack it robustly. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 12:05:50 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He we go 'according to More' ..........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'! H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory. And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale...paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 12:46:35
A J Hibbard
Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like a good book to miss.
A J

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

And Marie will love this... 
Buckingham had been writing to the young king at Ludlow (really where are the letters?). He rode to join Rivers 'out of the west country'. Young Edward's party skirted Northampton because it was 'not big enough to hold both Richard and Buckingham's retinues'. The young King got fed up with waiting so he sent Rivers and Grey over to Northampton to have dinner with Richard (and Buckingham who had yet to turn up).  Oh and the 'plot' to arrest Rivers and Grey had been devised with Richard by --- Hastings, who had influence in Northampton which had 'seen better days'.
I really want to burn this book. It even makes you appreciate the scholarship of Ross and dare, I say it Hicks, even if they have their 'anti' rant, and it insults all or us who try to scratch for the truth. Why didn't he just write a novel?
I do hope the Society attack it robustly. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 12:05:50 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

He we go 'according to More' ..........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'!   H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory.  And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale....paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

 

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong.  H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

 
I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers. 
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 13:19:08
Hilary Jones
So disappointed. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 12:46:39 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the heads up. Sounds like a good book to miss.
A J

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 12:26 PM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And Marie will love this...
Buckingham had been writing to the young king at Ludlow (really where are the letters?). He rode to join Rivers 'out of the west country'. Young Edward's party skirted Northampton because it was 'not big enough to hold both Richard and Buckingham's retinues'. The young King got fed up with waiting so he sent Rivers and Grey over to Northampton to have dinner with Richard (and Buckingham who had yet to turn up). Oh and the 'plot' to arrest Rivers and Grey had been devised with Richard by --- Hastings, who had influence in Northampton which had 'seen better days'.
I really want to burn this book. It even makes you appreciate the scholarship of Ross and dare, I say it Hicks, even if they have their 'anti' rant, and it insults all or us who try to scratch for the truth. Why didn't he just write a novel?
I do hope the Society attack it robustly. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 12:05:50 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

He we go 'according to More' ..........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'! H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory. And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale....paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 14:48:21
ricard1an
Does he cite any sources besides More?
Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 15:13:23
Hilary Jones
Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes.
There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!)
But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisitive Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps? H

On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 14:48:28 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Does he cite any sources besides More?


Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 15:21:31
Hilary Jones
That's the dilemma we face with historians isn't it? Do they 'dash off' something fast to please the masses and line their pockets, or spend years researching, discarding to tell the 'truth' which some people just don't want to hear. Part of the blurb to the book says if the brothers hadn't fallen out they would have been as great as the Tudors. What can you say? H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 15:13:33 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes.
There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!)
But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisitive Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps? H

On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 14:48:28 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Does he cite any sources besides More?


Mary

Re: More Info on Forster

2019-10-06 17:38:37
Doug Stamate
Ah, so not only was she possibly involved in traitorous activities, she was also a squatter? Tch, tch! Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, remember MB's second husband was Buck's uncle, Henry Stafford. It was his house and she kept it till son HT took it off her, to her great chagrin. She promptly took it back after he died :) :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 19:05:53
bale.paul-trevor@...
Oh gawd. How awful. Angry letters needed. Wish I'd not ordered it now.


Richard liveth yet! Le 6 oct. 2019 à 13:05 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He we go 'according to More' ..........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'!   H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

 

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory.  And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale...paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

 

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevor bale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong.  H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

 
I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers. 
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 19:24:21
Pamela Bain
I am not quite happy I did not order it as well. I agree about the dreadful abuse of historical facts.
On Oct 6, 2019, at 1:06 PM, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

Oh gawd. How awful. Angry letters needed. Wish I'd not ordered it now.


Richard liveth yet! Le 6 oct. 2019 à 13:05 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He we go 'according to More' ..........
I quote 'Suddenly Richard rounded on Hastings, shouting at him banging on the table, accusing him of being ringleader of the queen's plot. It was the signal for a group of Richard's men, stationed secretly in a room next door. They barged in, weapons drawn, and arrested Morton, Rotherham and the late king's secretary Oliver King, Lord Stanley (!) (who had avoided a sword probably wielded by Robert Harrington (!)) and Hastings who was forced to go outside, pushed to his knees and beheaded'
I just checked this one page. Oh and BTW Catesby and Hastings were chairing the meeting at the Tower. Bad, bad history and it's already a 'bestseller'! H

On Friday, 4 October 2019, 13:22:31 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

My guess he was under pressure to become another Mantel of, heaven forefend, Gregory. And lies yes they are indeed winning fast Paul. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:31:36 BST, Bale PAUL bale...paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Me too H. But he was unrelentingly pro York when dealing with Henry Tudor stealing the crown from them, but we must wait and see.

Maybe he felt it about time to ignore history and print the legend again. After all lies are getting aware with murder these days aren't they?
Bale Paul Trevor bale.paul-trevor@...



On 4 Oct 2019, at 13:20, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Eva I ordered it too and it should come today. From what I've read in reviews it worries me though. For a start only 15% of the book is devoted to Richard's reign - I reckon Penn ran out of steam. And secondly the 'advertisers blurb' on Richard 'Richard was proving remorseless' sounds as though we're going to get a More/Mancini 'blockbuster.
I do hope I'm wrong. H
On Friday, 4 October 2019, 12:13:22 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


I have preordered this book I think in 2014 or 15 and I am glad that it is finally published. Though it has not yet reached me. I found Thomans Penn' s "The Winter King" to be one of the best history books I ever read. The subtitle of "the Brothers York" is "an Englisch Tragedy", and that makes me sad, for that is exactly how I feel about the fate of the three brothers.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:09:33
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote (summarizing Penn, I do stress):

Buckingham had been writing to the young king at Ludlow (really where are the letters?).


Marie replies:

The book sounds a real horror. Not that I'm that surprised. Tudor historians always seem to have to adhere to the Tudor party line on Richard, no matter how critical they may be of individual Tudors. Plus they ae unfamiliar with the sources and not prepared to take the time to get inside the skin of the period. Glad I didn't pre-order - I can save myself some money.

Anyhow, what I was going to say it that most of our information about what happened during April 1483 comes from chronicles and histories, unfortunately. There are no council minutes, and the Paston Letters are silent. A lot of what even Ricardians take as given is from Mancini, where events seem to support his claims, which they do to a surprising extent for the event of April and May - after that nothing seems to stack up with known chronology.

For instance, the letter(s) from Hastings to Richard do not actually exist in any form; it is just that Mancini claims that "according to common report the chamberlain Hastings reported all these deliberations by letter and messengers to the duke of Gloucester...." Similarly, Mancini is our source for Richard's letter to the council, in which he reminded them of his loyalty to Edward IV, promised to be equally loyal to his son, and warned that "nothing contrary to law and his brother's desire could be decreed without harm." It is Mancini tells us that many on the council were against having a rushed coronation, and thought it unseemly.

Mancini also says that, having "exchanged views and united their resources", Richard and Buckingham wrote separately to the king in Wales, "to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent."

So it's not that Penn is wrong in using this information, but he should have made clear that it is based on the single report of a foreign visitor to the country who didn't speak English and whose sources of information we don't generally know.

Sounds like he's not made his sources very clear. I don't care if a lot of readers dislike it - if I ever publish a history book it will be referenced to within an inch of its life.



Hilary wrote:

He rode to join Rivers 'out of the west country'. Young Edward's party skirted Northampton because it was 'not big enough to hold both Richard and Buckingham's retinues'. The young King got fed up with waiting so he sent Rivers and Grey over to Northampton to have dinner with Richard (and Buckingham who had yet to turn up). Oh and the 'plot' to arrest Rivers and Grey had been devised with Richard by --- Hastings, who had influence in Northampton which had 'seen better days'.


Marie:

My guess is that Penn bases his claim about Hastings on the correspondence that the "common report" picked up by Mancini had him engaged in with Richard.

He's taking his account of events at Northampton/ Stony Stratford and Northampton, and of the motives of the players straight from More. It's what people drifting in from the Tudor era tend to do. It's such a nice ready-made story.


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:13:07
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. . . . Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville.......

Marie:Go on, tell me if he has Richard living in sin with Anne Neville under cover of an invalid dispensation because George's marriage made them unable to wed legally. And committing incest with his niece. ???

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:22:35
mariewalsh2003

Paul wrote:

Oh gawd. How awful. Angry letters needed. Wish I'd not ordered it now.



Marie:

On the strength of what's been said about it here, I would agree with the first sentiments.

Keep calm, though. Facts make converts, not anger.



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:28:15
Hilary Jones
I had such high hopes of Thomas Penn. I thought we'd got a high profile historian at last. Seems he's been seduced by fame


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Sunday, October 6, 2019, 8:22 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

Oh gawd. How awful. Angry letters needed. Wish I'd not ordered it now.



Marie:

On the strength of what's been said about it here, I would agree with the first sentiments.

Keep calm, though. Facts make converts, not anger.



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:33:32
Pamela Bain
And as we say in Texas, isn't that a fine howdy do.
On Oct 6, 2019, at 2:28 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

I had such high hopes of Thomas Penn. I thought we'd got a high profile historian at last. Seems he's been seduced by fame


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Sunday, October 6, 2019, 8:22 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

Oh gawd. How awful. Angry letters needed. Wish I'd not ordered it now.



Marie:

On the strength of what's been said about it here, I would agree with the first sentiments.

Keep calm, though. Facts make converts, not anger.



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:40:22
eva.pitter@ymail.com
I have not yet got the book, but I will send it back as soon as I get it. I never would have thought that a tolerably reasonable historian thinks that More wrote a historybook based an facts. He was not even in a hurry to bring out the book as soon as possible. It took him several years to write such rubbish!Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:45:40
A J Hibbard
I'd suggest that anyone who has read enough of the book to do so should write a review on Amazon. Potential book buyers do look at & pay attention to them.

A J

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:40 PM eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
 

I have not yet got the book, but I will send it back as soon as I get it. I never would have thought that a tolerably reasonable historian thinks that More wrote a historybook based an facts. He was not even in a hurry to bring out the book as soon as possible. It took him several years to write such rubbish!Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 20:59:35
bale.paul-trevor@...
Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it!  Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, «  in case »?  I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 21:24:39
bale.paul-trevor@...
About Penn using secondary sources. If he was just being lazy why not use a well researched book like Annette Carson? Maybe he got bored stiff doing proper research on The Winter King and thought everyone in the same period would be as hard and as boring as Henry Tudor! 


Richard liveth yet! Le 6 oct. 2019 à 21:45 +0200, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <>, a écrit :

I'd suggest that anyone who has read enough of the book to do so should write a review on Amazon. Potential book buyers do look at & pay attention to them.

A J

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:40 PM eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
 

I have not yet got the book, but I will send it back as soon as I get it. I never would have thought that a tolerably reasonable historian thinks that More wrote a historybook based an facts. He was not even in a hurry to bring out the book as soon as possible. It took him several years to write such rubbish! Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 21:38:25
Nicholas Brown
Thanks for the preview. I was looking forward to reading this book, What a shame that Penn dumbed down when the Winter King was so well researched and insightful. You would think that people who are intelligent enough to read history books would welcome footnotes and source references. Also, why did he take so long to write derivative drivel? Could he be one of those 'historians' like Kate Williams whose books are actually written by research students? I will give this a miss. Nico



On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:59:57 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it! Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, « in case »? I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-06 22:13:20
Nicholas Brown

Penn has also written a Penguin Monarchs book called Edward V: The May King, which isn't available yet, but is aimed at schools. If this book is anything to go by, it looks like another generation of kiddies are getting a hatchet job view of Richard. Depressing! Nico

On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 21:38:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the preview. I was looking forward to reading this book, What a shame that Penn dumbed down when the Winter King was so well researched and insightful. You would think that people who are intelligent enough to read history books would welcome footnotes and source references. Also, why did he take so long to write derivative drivel? Could he be one of those 'historians' like Kate Williams whose books are actually written by research students? I will give this a miss. Nico



On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:59:57 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it! Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, « in case »? I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 04:45:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 05:12:51
Nance Crawford
Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned. ----- Original Message ----- From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/6/2019 2:13:16 PM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn


Penn has also written a Penguin Monarchs book called Edward V: The May King, which isn't available yet, but is aimed at schools. If this book is anything to go by, it looks like another generation of kiddies are getting a hatchet job view of Richard. Depressing! Nico

On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 21:38:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the preview. I was looking forward to reading this book, What a shame that Penn dumbed down when the Winter King was so well researched and insightful. You would think that people who are intelligent enough to read history books would welcome footnotes and source references. Also, why did he take so long to write derivative drivel? Could he be one of those 'historians' like Kate Williams whose books are actually written by research students? I will give this a miss. Nico



On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:59:57 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it! Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, « in case »? I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 07:52:51
bale.paul-trevor@...
How anybody could seriously consider writing a book about Edward V when there is sparse documentation and only the likes of More to go by is beyond me! Hicks tried it and produced a thin volume based on lies and innuendos. A bit like Brexit. Oops. Sorry. I'm in Cathar country and steeped in research of that extraordinary period which is oddly well documented. In fact the reign of Louis XI is better documented than that of his contemporary Richard, but then the French weren't dealing with usurpers with no right to the crown and an official historian tasked with checking all surviving documentation reflected badly on the old regime! Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 6 oct. 2019 à 23:13 +0200, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <>, a écrit :


Penn has also written a Penguin Monarchs book called Edward V: The May King, which isn't available yet, but is aimed at schools. If this book is anything to go by, it looks like another generation of kiddies are getting a hatchet job view of Richard. Depressing!  Nico

On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 21:38:32 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

 

Thanks for the preview. I was looking forward to reading this book, What a shame that Penn dumbed down when the Winter King was so well researched and insightful. You would think that people who are intelligent enough to read history books would welcome footnotes and source references. Also, why did he take so long to write derivative drivel? Could he be one of those 'historians' like Kate Williams whose books are actually written by research students? I will give this a miss.   Nico



On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:59:57 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

 

Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it!  Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, «  in case »?  I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 09:10:12
Bale PAUL
I'd be interested in finding out who his tutors were.I believe Starkey indoctrinates at one Cambridge college.(Yes I loathe him!! He gives historians a bad name, along with mini Starkey Dan "I'm with it I have tattooes" Jones)
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 7 Oct 2019, at 05:45, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed.For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists:Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283;Four sourcesfrom St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts),Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments.There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources.A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate.Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote:Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes.There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!)But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 09:28:39
ricard1an
As great as the Tudors I think it is time that some people realised that, in reality, the Tudors did very little for this country. However, the Yorkists did turn ENgland around after the disastrous rule of the Lancastrians. If only all historians did some of the excellent research that I have witnessed on this site over the last few weeks and months.
Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 09:34:53
ricard1an
Surely he wouldn't dare Marie because you really blasted that myth a few years ago.
Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 09:37:51
Hilary Jones
I will do but I agree with Marie, it has to be carefully challenged by fact. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:45:47 BST, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

I'd suggest that anyone who has read enough of the book to do so should write a review on Amazon. Potential book buyers do look at & pay attention to them.

A J

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:40 PM eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

I have not yet got the book, but I will send it back as soon as I get it. I never would have thought that a tolerably reasonable historian thinks that More wrote a historybook based an facts. He was not even in a hurry to bring out the book as soon as possible. It took him several years to write such rubbish!Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 09:46:05
Hilary Jones
You know what, it reads like extracts from other books. So the bit about Richard and the Countess of Oxford is straight out of Hicks's 'Anne Neville' and Edward's over-eating and womanising which according to Penn starts as soon as he took the throne, straight from More. I think Ross doesn't feature much in his research because he is 'too hard'. I wouldn't be surprised if he used research students; it's been delayed twice and the section on Edward V and Richard's reign only 100 pages. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 21:38:33 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks for the preview. I was looking forward to reading this book, What a shame that Penn dumbed down when the Winter King was so well researched and insightful. You would think that people who are intelligent enough to read history books would welcome footnotes and source references. Also, why did he take so long to write derivative drivel? Could he be one of those 'historians' like Kate Williams whose books are actually written by research students? I will give this a miss. Nico



On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:59:57 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary you said you hope The Society attacks it! Now when have you ever known The Society attack anyone, « in case »? I mean they invited Hicks and Starkey to give talks at AGMs! And please don't suggest it's a know they enemy strategy. It's only about money and who these people might know! Cynic that I am, but I stand by it. Paul



Richard liveth yet!

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 10:07:38
Hilary Jones
Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.
Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years. H

On Monday, 7 October 2019, 04:45:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 10:18:43
Hilary Jones
I don't think he was as meticulous in his research to know all this Marie. As I said to Nico I reckon it's taken from other books and was also probably researched, as he suggests, by other students as well. What seriously concerns me is that everything is narrated as though it is a fact viz Robert Harrington took a swipe at Stanley (who we know actually supported Richard, not plotted with Hastings) because of Hornby. If you're going to write about this period as though everything is fact then write a novel because, as we all know, we have very few proven facts.
I note Annette Carson is not on his sources list. Perhaps someone should send him a copy of 'Maligned King' to brush up his knowledge of the veracity of sources? H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:09:40 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote (summarizing Penn, I do stress):

Buckingham had been writing to the young king at Ludlow (really where are the letters?).


Marie replies:

The book sounds a real horror. Not that I'm that surprised. Tudor historians always seem to have to adhere to the Tudor party line on Richard, no matter how critical they may be of individual Tudors. Plus they ae unfamiliar with the sources and not prepared to take the time to get inside the skin of the period. Glad I didn't pre-order - I can save myself some money.

Anyhow, what I was going to say it that most of our information about what happened during April 1483 comes from chronicles and histories, unfortunately. There are no council minutes, and the Paston Letters are silent. A lot of what even Ricardians take as given is from Mancini, where events seem to support his claims, which they do to a surprising extent for the event of April and May - after that nothing seems to stack up with known chronology.

For instance, the letter(s) from Hastings to Richard do not actually exist in any form; it is just that Mancini claims that "according to common report the chamberlain Hastings reported all these deliberations by letter and messengers to the duke of Gloucester...." Similarly, Mancini is our source for Richard's letter to the council, in which he reminded them of his loyalty to Edward IV, promised to be equally loyal to his son, and warned that "nothing contrary to law and his brother's desire could be decreed without harm." It is Mancini tells us that many on the council were against having a rushed coronation, and thought it unseemly.

Mancini also says that, having "exchanged views and united their resources", Richard and Buckingham wrote separately to the king in Wales, "to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent."

So it's not that Penn is wrong in using this information, but he should have made clear that it is based on the single report of a foreign visitor to the country who didn't speak English and whose sources of information we don't generally know.

Sounds like he's not made his sources very clear. I don't care if a lot of readers dislike it - if I ever publish a history book it will be referenced to within an inch of its life.



Hilary wrote:

He rode to join Rivers 'out of the west country'. Young Edward's party skirted Northampton because it was 'not big enough to hold both Richard and Buckingham's retinues'. The young King got fed up with waiting so he sent Rivers and Grey over to Northampton to have dinner with Richard (and Buckingham who had yet to turn up). Oh and the 'plot' to arrest Rivers and Grey had been devised with Richard by --- Hastings, who had influence in Northampton which had 'seen better days'.


Marie:

My guess is that Penn bases his claim about Hastings on the correspondence that the "common report" picked up by Mancini had him engaged in with Richard.

He's taking his account of events at Northampton/ Stony Stratford and Northampton, and of the motives of the players straight from More. It's what people drifting in from the Tudor era tend to do. It's such a nice ready-made story.


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 10:34:26
Hilary Jones
Personally, I think he bit off more than he could chew when he suggested to his publishers writing this. After all he skipped the 'difficult bits' of HT's reign. I think he was given a book deal and they knew that Richard in particular was very saleable. But he ran out of time twice and they put the thumb screws on him. The 'Richard bits' are so rushed it's as though he couldn't wait to get to the end of it. H
On Sunday, 6 October 2019, 20:40:28 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

I have not yet got the book, but I will send it back as soon as I get it. I never would have thought that a tolerably reasonable historian thinks that More wrote a historybook based an facts. He was not even in a hurry to bring out the book as soon as possible. It took him several years to write such rubbish!Eva

Thomas Penn and his PhD

2019-10-07 11:10:16
Christine Headley


The British Library catalogue contains details of a large number of British PhDs - I don't know how far back it goes. You can download many of them for free, but unfortunately not Cambridge ones. Homepage is https://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do

Thomas Penn's was awarded in 2001, for 'Literary service at the court of Henry VII'.

Best wishes

Christine

On 07-Oct-19 4:45, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] wrote:
 

      Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was?   Doug   Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources.  So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville.......  so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW.  He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?      
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 12:36:55
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I don't think he was as meticulous in his research to know all this Marie. As I said to Nico I reckon it's taken from other books and was also probably researched, as he suggests, by other students as well. What seriously concerns me is that everything is narrated as though it is a fact viz Robert Harrington took a swipe at Stanley (who we know actually supported Richard, not plotted with Hastings) because of Hornby. If you're going to write about this period as though everything is fact then write a novel because, as we all know, we have very few proven facts.


Marie replies:

Yes, it does sound as though this book suffers from a severe case of Chinese Whispers Syndrome. Robert Harrington's name comes from Vergil's unpublished Ms of his history, where as I understand it he just says that the men who rushed in on Richard's side were led by Thomas Howard, Charles Pilkington and Robert Harrington. I imagine someone may have speculated in print that Harrington might have attacked or arrested Stanley in an attempt (which must evidently have been unsuccessful if it did occur) to implicate him and thus recover Hornby, or simply to take revenge, but Vergil doesn't indicate anything of the sort as far as I'm aware.

Even writing history books carefully from well researched secondary sources is dangerous enough as stories mutate subtly each time they are told, but carelessly regurgitating previous speculation as known fact is not what one would expect of a serious historian, is it?


As a matter of interest, is there an Acknowledgements section, and if so who does Penn thank for helping him? I just wonder if he may have been encouraged to go silly by interested parties, just as Michael Hicks was by Alison Weir in writing Anne Neville. Not that that would be an excuse.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 14:54:27
eva.pitter@ymail.com
We should have been warned. I just looked up a remark about Richard in the Winterking that shows his lack of research even then. It goes:" As the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt later recalled, his father, Henry II's Jewelhouse keeper, Henry Wyatt, had been racked on the orders of Richard III, who had sat there and watched."Page 228, Penguin Paperback.
Still I had hoped, that through thorough research Penn would have learned something new about Richard. Possibly the scantiness of sources for Richard's time led him to take the easy way out and reproduce indiscriminately these tidious,old stories.
Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 15:35:27
Hilary Jones
Here we go: Alex Brondarbit, Helen Castor, Linda Clark, Ralph Griffiths, Sam Harper and David Rundle. And generous with their time were Rosemary Horrox (yes we have the 'true Yorkists' defecting to HT), Joanna Laynesmith (oh dear how's she going to apologise to the Society), Tony Pollard (!!!!) Carol Rawlcliffe and John Watts. Obviously thought anyone allied to the Society not worth consulting. I guess Castor was consulted on the Paston Letters and Laynesmith on queenship. Incidentally I haven't looked at the PreContract bit yet - it may give me a stroke. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 12:37:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I don't think he was as meticulous in his research to know all this Marie. As I said to Nico I reckon it's taken from other books and was also probably researched, as he suggests, by other students as well. What seriously concerns me is that everything is narrated as though it is a fact viz Robert Harrington took a swipe at Stanley (who we know actually supported Richard, not plotted with Hastings) because of Hornby. If you're going to write about this period as though everything is fact then write a novel because, as we all know, we have very few proven facts.


Marie replies:

Yes, it does sound as though this book suffers from a severe case of Chinese Whispers Syndrome. Robert Harrington's name comes from Vergil's unpublished Ms of his history, where as I understand it he just says that the men who rushed in on Richard's side were led by Thomas Howard, Charles Pilkington and Robert Harrington. I imagine someone may have speculated in print that Harrington might have attacked or arrested Stanley in an attempt (which must evidently have been unsuccessful if it did occur) to implicate him and thus recover Hornby, or simply to take revenge, but Vergil doesn't indicate anything of the sort as far as I'm aware.

Even writing history books carefully from well researched secondary sources is dangerous enough as stories mutate subtly each time they are told, but carelessly regurgitating previous speculation as known fact is not what one would expect of a serious historian, is it?


As a matter of interest, is there an Acknowledgements section, and if so who does Penn thank for helping him? I just wonder if he may have been encouraged to go silly by interested parties, just as Michael Hicks was by Alison Weir in writing Anne Neville. Not that that would be an excuse.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 15:37:29
Hilary Jones
Yes and he wanted to write the greatest historical blockbuster of all time: action, action, action!! And it's a bestseller before even being published. I despair for the discipline of History. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 14:54:33 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:

We should have been warned. I just looked up a remark about Richard in the Winterking that shows his lack of research even then. It goes:" As the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt later recalled, his father, Henry II's Jewelhouse keeper, Henry Wyatt, had been racked on the orders of Richard III, who had sat there and watched."Page 228, Penguin Paperback.
Still I had hoped, that through thorough research Penn would have learned something new about Richard. Possibly the scantiness of sources for Richard's time led him to take the easy way out and reproduce indiscriminately these tidious,old stories.
Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 15:46:24
Hilary Jones
It's no good I had to look. Catesby was made Speaker so he could dream up a ratification by Parliament of Titulus Regius saying that Edward had married the conveniently dead Eleanor Butler, a noblewoman. Occupies one paragraph. We never even get to know who Eleanor was. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 15:35:38 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Here we go: Alex Brondarbit, Helen Castor, Linda Clark, Ralph Griffiths, Sam Harper and David Rundle. And generous with their time were Rosemary Horrox (yes we have the 'true Yorkists' defecting to HT), Joanna Laynesmith (oh dear how's she going to apologise to the Society), Tony Pollard (!!!!) Carol Rawlcliffe and John Watts. Obviously thought anyone allied to the Society not worth consulting. I guess Castor was consulted on the Paston Letters and Laynesmith on queenship. Incidentally I haven't looked at the PreContract bit yet - it may give me a stroke. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 12:37:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I don't think he was as meticulous in his research to know all this Marie. As I said to Nico I reckon it's taken from other books and was also probably researched, as he suggests, by other students as well. What seriously concerns me is that everything is narrated as though it is a fact viz Robert Harrington took a swipe at Stanley (who we know actually supported Richard, not plotted with Hastings) because of Hornby. If you're going to write about this period as though everything is fact then write a novel because, as we all know, we have very few proven facts.


Marie replies:

Yes, it does sound as though this book suffers from a severe case of Chinese Whispers Syndrome. Robert Harrington's name comes from Vergil's unpublished Ms of his history, where as I understand it he just says that the men who rushed in on Richard's side were led by Thomas Howard, Charles Pilkington and Robert Harrington. I imagine someone may have speculated in print that Harrington might have attacked or arrested Stanley in an attempt (which must evidently have been unsuccessful if it did occur) to implicate him and thus recover Hornby, or simply to take revenge, but Vergil doesn't indicate anything of the sort as far as I'm aware.

Even writing history books carefully from well researched secondary sources is dangerous enough as stories mutate subtly each time they are told, but carelessly regurgitating previous speculation as known fact is not what one would expect of a serious historian, is it?


As a matter of interest, is there an Acknowledgements section, and if so who does Penn thank for helping him? I just wonder if he may have been encouraged to go silly by interested parties, just as Michael Hicks was by Alison Weir in writing Anne Neville. Not that that would be an excuse.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 16:02:43
Hilary Jones
Alex Brondarbit - did his Ph.D at Winchester and lectures there! He specialises in medieval kingship. Probably wrote most of this:) :) H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 15:35:38 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Here we go: Alex Brondarbit, Helen Castor, Linda Clark, Ralph Griffiths, Sam Harper and David Rundle. And generous with their time were Rosemary Horrox (yes we have the 'true Yorkists' defecting to HT), Joanna Laynesmith (oh dear how's she going to apologise to the Society), Tony Pollard (!!!!) Carol Rawlcliffe and John Watts. Obviously thought anyone allied to the Society not worth consulting. I guess Castor was consulted on the Paston Letters and Laynesmith on queenship. Incidentally I haven't looked at the PreContract bit yet - it may give me a stroke. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 12:37:02 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

I don't think he was as meticulous in his research to know all this Marie. As I said to Nico I reckon it's taken from other books and was also probably researched, as he suggests, by other students as well. What seriously concerns me is that everything is narrated as though it is a fact viz Robert Harrington took a swipe at Stanley (who we know actually supported Richard, not plotted with Hastings) because of Hornby. If you're going to write about this period as though everything is fact then write a novel because, as we all know, we have very few proven facts.


Marie replies:

Yes, it does sound as though this book suffers from a severe case of Chinese Whispers Syndrome. Robert Harrington's name comes from Vergil's unpublished Ms of his history, where as I understand it he just says that the men who rushed in on Richard's side were led by Thomas Howard, Charles Pilkington and Robert Harrington. I imagine someone may have speculated in print that Harrington might have attacked or arrested Stanley in an attempt (which must evidently have been unsuccessful if it did occur) to implicate him and thus recover Hornby, or simply to take revenge, but Vergil doesn't indicate anything of the sort as far as I'm aware.

Even writing history books carefully from well researched secondary sources is dangerous enough as stories mutate subtly each time they are told, but carelessly regurgitating previous speculation as known fact is not what one would expect of a serious historian, is it?


As a matter of interest, is there an Acknowledgements section, and if so who does Penn thank for helping him? I just wonder if he may have been encouraged to go silly by interested parties, just as Michael Hicks was by Alison Weir in writing Anne Neville. Not that that would be an excuse.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 16:08:41
Doug Stamate
Paul, What I was wondering about was whether what ended up in Winter King wasn't the result of his required writings for those theses. Perhaps that book was the only one he ever really had in him? And if it was the result of a decade's worth or more of required study, there's also the possibility that he just didn't/doesn't want to go through all that again? Doug Paul wrote: I'd be interested in finding out who his tutors were. I believe Starkey indoctrinates at one Cambridge college. (Yes I loathe him!! He gives historians a bad name, along with mini Starkey Dan "I'm with it I have tattooes" Jones)

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

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 18:08:24
mariewalsh2003

Here we go: Alex Brondarbit, Helen Castor, Linda Clark, Ralph Griffiths, Sam Harper and David Rundle. And generous with their time were Rosemary Horrox (yes we have the 'true Yorkists' defecting to HT), Joanna Laynesmith (oh dear how's she going to apologise to the Society), Tony Pollard (!!!!) Carol Rawlcliffe and John Watts. Obviously thought anyone allied to the Society not worth consulting. I guess Castor was consulted on the Paston Letters and Laynesmith on queenship. Incidentally I haven't looked at the PreContract bit yet - it may give me a stroke. H


Marie:

Oh well, I was being too generous. I doubt any of the people on this list whose work I'm familiar with were responsible for his take on the subject. Is it as bad all the way through?

Of course, people who are consulted by prospective authors have no control over what use those authors make of information given.

When you say they obviously didn't think anyone allied to the Society worth consulting, I take it you did mean except Joanna Laynesmith, who is the Society's Research Officer? She has nothing to apologise for, of course. I've been in similar positions myself.


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 19:31:13
Nance Crawford
----- Original Message ----- From: maryfriend@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/7/2019 1:28:36 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

As great as the Tudors I think it is time that some people realised that, in reality, the Tudors did very little for this country. However, the Yorkists did turn ENgland around after the disastrous rule of the Lancastrians. If only all historians did some of the excellent research that I have witnessed on this site over the last few weeks and months.
Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 19:31:41
Nance Crawford
Amen to that, Mary! ----- Original Message ----- From: maryfriend@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/7/2019 1:28:36 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

As great as the Tudors I think it is time that some people realised that, in reality, the Tudors did very little for this country. However, the Yorkists did turn ENgland around after the disastrous rule of the Lancastrians. If only all historians did some of the excellent research that I have witnessed on this site over the last few weeks and months.
Mary

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-07 19:42:14
Stephen
Penn sounds like a complete mumpsimus.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... []
Sent: 07 October 2019 19:31
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

 
 
Amen to that, Mary!
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: maryfriend@... [] <>
Reply-To: <>
To: <>
Sent: 10/7/2019 1:28:36 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

 
As great as the Tudors I think it is time that some people realised that, in reality, the Tudors did very little for this country.. However, the Yorkists did turn ENgland around after the disastrous rule of the Lancastrians.  If only all historians did some of the excellent research that I have witnessed on this site over the last few weeks and months.

Mary




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 07:11:41
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR. If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 12:34:05
Nicholas Brown
Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR. If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 13:37:55
Hilary Jones
He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not. It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR. If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 14:11:56
Paul Trevor Bale
The rack was a Tudor invention if I'm thinking correctly.And Richard never resorted to torture, though hanging drawing and quartering was no picnicBut then traitors deserved the worst. Paul Trevor Balebale475@...


On 7 Oct 2019, at 16:37, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes and he wanted to write the greatest historical blockbuster of all time: action, action, action!! And it's a bestseller before even being published. I despair for the discipline of History. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 14:54:33 BST, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:


We should have been warned. I just looked up a remark about Richard in the Winterking that shows his lack of research even then. It goes:" As the poet Sir Thomas Wyatt later recalled, his father, Henry II's Jewelhouse keeper, Henry Wyatt, had been racked on the orders of Richard III, who had sat there and watched."Page 228, Penguin Paperback.
Still I had hoped, that through thorough research Penn would have learned something new about Richard. Possibly the scantiness of sources for Richard's time led him to take the easy way out and reproduce indiscriminately these tidious,old stories.
Eva


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 15:04:33
Bale PAUL
Oh good grief. Miles Forest has been dismissed as being a fictional character invented by More years ago!
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 8 Oct 2019, at 13:34, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary,I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR.If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda.Doug Hilary wrote:Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done..Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 15:08:47
bale.paul-trevor@...
There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in?  I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not. It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

 

  Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

      Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR. If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering?   I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to  purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug   Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum.  But he could have been doing it for years and years.    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 16:41:41
Hilary Jones
I'm certainly going to do a review which will not be positive :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 15:08:53 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in? I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not. It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here..). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR.. If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 18:26:18
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote that Penn:

seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR).


Marie:

I don't think it's a strange new category, though I think I've previously seen those items listed as Published Primary Sources. There is a difference between using the original manuscripts and using published transcripts or summaries. The first is the horse's mouth, the second a sort of artist's impression, and there can be errors of transcription. Or, as with the CPR (Calendar of Patent Rolls) or CFR (Calendar of Fine Rolls) they are only summaries of the documents, not full transcripts.

There are no published versions of the King's Bench Records, and only one very selective summary of Exchequer issues (as opposed to other classes of Exchequer document).


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 18:32:32
mariewalsh2003

Nicholas wrote:

I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions.


Marie:

Taking one point at a time:

1) Making schools aware: I imagine Richard Smith, the Society's Education Officer, will do precisely, in a diplomatic way, that if it is necessary. I understand he does a great job in providing schools with information.

2) Telling Penguin it's biased in the hope that they will force him to make changes. I admire your faith in human nature, but I don't think it's likely to do anything except make us look interfering.




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 18:43:39
mariewalsh2003
The rack was a Tudor invention if I'm thinking correctly.And Richard never resorted to torture, though hanging drawing and quartering was no picnicBut then traitors deserved the worst.Paul Trevor Balebale475@...
Marie:Sorry to have to let you down, Paul. The first rack was introduced into England from France by John Holland, Duke of Exeter, the one who died in the 1440s. He was the Governor of the Tower, and had it installed there. There's no evidence it was used during Henry VI's reign, but I think there might be claims Edward used it on at least one of the Lancastrian suspects he had arrested in 1468 - I would have to check. There must have been a rack at Calais as well, as in 1482 a man who had, when in Calais, written accusations against Dorset and Rivers (what they were, we know not) , testified to the king's council that they were untrue and "he did hit of his owne false ymagynacion for fear of his life and puttyng hym in the brake at Caleis."It is true that the rack only came into regular use in Tudor times.
This is not aimed particularly at you, Paul, but can I just put in a plea for cool heads? It will do no good at all if we make complaints about Penn's work without first being sure our own facts are correct.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 18:51:51
mariewalsh2003
Oh good grief. Miles Forest has been dismissed as being a fictional character invented by More years ago!
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...

Marie replies:Paul, sorry, no yet again.This is from the Patent Rolls, dated 8 Septmber 1485:"Grant for life to Joan Forest, widow, late wife to the King's servant Miles Forest, and Edward her son of an annuity of 5 marks from the issues of the lordship of Bernard Castell. There days later Richard issued a warrant to the Receiver of Barnard Castle to pay the said annuity (Harley 433).Edward Forest can be traced in 16th-century records, and was succeeded by another Miles.A Henry Forrest was also yeoman of the Crown to Richard.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 19:01:31
bale.paul-trevor@...
No offence taken personally rest assured. I wasn't sure about the rack, on,y that it wasn't until Tudor times that it came into frequent use. Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 19:43 +0200, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>, a écrit :

The rack was a Tudor invention if I'm thinking correctly.

And Richard never resorted to torture, though hanging drawing and quartering was no picnic But then traitors deserved the worst. Paul Trevor Bale bale475@...
Marie: Sorry to have to let you down, Paul. The first rack was introduced into England from France by John Holland, Duke of Exeter, the one who died in the 1440s. He was the Governor of the Tower, and had it installed there. There's no evidence it was used during Henry VI's reign, but I think there might be claims Edward used it on at least one of the Lancastrian suspects he had arrested in 1468 - I would have to check. There must have been a rack at Calais as well, as in 1482 a man who had, when in Calais, written accusations against Dorset and Rivers (what they were, we know not) , testified to the king's council that they were untrue and "he did hit of his owne false ymagynacion for fear of his life and puttyng hym in the brake at Caleis." It is true that the rack only came into regular use in Tudor times.
This is not aimed particularly at you, Paul, but can I just put in a plea for cool heads? It will do no good at all if we make complaints about Penn's work without first being sure our own facts are correct.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 20:14:06
mariewalsh2003

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.


Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Henry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of Henry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)


We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad having exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?


I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 20:23:53
Stephen

It sounds like James V's regent  the Albany who fought at Pavia?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:14
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.

Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Hen ry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of H enry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)

We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad havin g exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?

I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 21:59:07
Nicholas Brown

Sorry, I meant Dan Jones.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 21:58:23 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Marie, it is good to know that Richard Smith is able to communicate with schools in a way that could hopefully persuade teachers who rely on the book to introduce other perspectives to their students. Unfortunately, when Hilary said that Penn is Penguin's publishing director, I realized that writing to Penguin about changes to the book is probably a lost cause. Writing a bad book for your own company does seem like something of a conflict of interest, but my guess is that he was hoping for Dan Brown's sales, and tailored his book in that direction. Even in the small section I read, I detected a similarity in style.Nico


Marie wrote:Taking one point at a time:
1) Making schools aware: I imagine Richard Smith, the Society's Education Officer, will do precisely, in a diplomatic way, that if it is necessary. I understand he does a great job in providing schools with information.
2) Telling Penguin it's biased in the hope that they will force him to make changes. I admire your faith in human nature, but I don't think it's likely to do anything except make us look interfering.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:24:14 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It sounds like James V's regent  the Albany who fought at Pavia?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:14
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.

Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Hen ry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of H enry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)

We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad havin g exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?

I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront.. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 22:18:26
Nicholas Brown
Marie, it is good to know that Richard Smith is able to communicate with schools in a way that could hopefully persuade teachers who rely on the book to introduce other perspectives to their students. Unfortunately, when Hilary said that Penn is Penguin's publishing director, I realized that writing to Penguin about changes to the book is probably a lost cause. Writing a bad book for your own company does seem like something of a conflict of interest, but my guess is that he was hoping for Dan Brown's sales, and tailored his book in that direction. Even in the small section I read, I detected a similarity in style.Nico


Marie wrote:Taking one point at a time:
1) Making schools aware: I imagine Richard Smith, the Society's Education Officer, will do precisely, in a diplomatic way, that if it is necessary. I understand he does a great job in providing schools with information.
2) Telling Penguin it's biased in the hope that they will force him to make changes. I admire your faith in human nature, but I don't think it's likely to do anything except make us look interfering.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:24:14 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It sounds like James V's regent  the Albany who fought at Pavia?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:14
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.

Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Hen ry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of H enry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)

We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad havin g exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?

I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront.. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-08 22:21:52
eva.pitter@ymail.com
Thank you , Marie for this rectification. Though I never thought for a single moment, that this story was true, I am glad as always of your scholary and levelheaded contributions on this forum.Eva

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 00:58:46
mariewalsh2003

Thanks Eva.

I'm sure you never believed it, but all too many writers who take an anti-Richard stance swallow it uncritically. I suppose we are all more critical of information that we don't like the sound of than the stuff that is music to our ears, but this one really doesn't stand much scrutiny and doesn't do its disseminators a lot of credit.


To Stephen: I tend to agree with you about the tyrant. I too am inclined to think the remarks about the tyrant and the rack may be meant to relate to the Scottish imprisonment. The trouble is by the next century a family tradition had solidified in which Sir Henry had been imprisoned by Richard in the Tower - for ages, fed by a cat and tortured in the most peculiar way. The horse barnacles - tongs to nip the nostrils of an unwilling horse to force it to keep still - were the Wyatt family badge, and I suppose this was made up to explain it (and perhaps to explain Sir Henry's extraordinarily generously-sized nose).


To return to Miles Forrest: I looked for entries on him once, and I didn't find any payments made to him so Penn may well be mistaken there; muddling him with one of the other suspects, perhaps.

Besides, orders to pay individuals mostly don't tell you what service they'd performed. Unfortunately, however, some Ricardian writers have in the past used the same sort of "mysterious payments" to bolster their own theories, so that is now coming back to bite.

The annuity granted to Miles' widow and son, 5 marks (£3 6s 8d), is not very large and is completely in keeping with the sort of annuities that elderly retainers of his ilk or their families might expect to be granted so I hope Penn isn't trying to make something fishy out of that. At least he's not doing a Hicks/ Horrox and using it to suggest Mrs Forrest was the mother of one of Richard's illegitimate children (is he?).


Marie




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 02:36:34
Stephen

If Forrest is possibly fictional then Will Slaughter must be  like the Green, Berry and Hill case.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 09 October 2019 00:58
To:
Subject: RE: Thomas Penn

Thanks Eva.

I'm sure you never believed it, but all too many writers who take an anti-Richard stance swallow it uncritically. I suppose we are all more critical of information that we don't like the sound of than the stuff that is music to our ears, but this one really doesn't stand much scrutiny and doesn't do its disseminators a lot of credit.

To Stephen: I tend to agree with you about the tyrant. I too am inclined to think the remarks about the tyrant and the rack may be meant to relate to the Scottish imprisonment. The trouble is by the next century a family tradition had solidified in which Sir Henry had been imprisoned by Richard in the Tower - for ages, fed by a cat and tortured in the most peculiar way. The horse barnacles - tongs to nip the nostrils of an unwilling horse to force it to keep still - were the Wyatt family badge, and I suppose this was made up to explain it (and perhaps to explain Sir Henry's extraordinarily generously-sized nose).

To return to Miles Forrest: I looked for entries on him once, and I didn't find any payments made to him so Penn may well be mistaken there; muddling him with one of the other suspects, perhaps.

Besides, orders to pay individuals mostly don't tell you what service they'd performed. Unfortunately, however, some Ricardian writers have in the past used the same sort of "mysterious payments" to bolster their own theories, so that is now coming back to bite.

The annuity granted to Miles' widow and son, 5 marks (£3 6s 8d), is not very large and is completely in keeping with the sort of annuities that elderly retainers of his ilk or their families might expect to be granted so I hope Penn isn't trying to make something fishy out of that. At least he's not doing a Hicks/ Horrox and using it to suggest Mrs Forrest was the mother of one of Richard's illegitimate children (is he?).

Marie

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 10:08:02
Hilary Jones
Are 'Published' makes sense! H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 18:26:23 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote that Penn:

seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR).


Marie:

I don't think it's a strange new category, though I think I've previously seen those items listed as Published Primary Sources. There is a difference between using the original manuscripts and using published transcripts or summaries. The first is the horse's mouth, the second a sort of artist's impression, and there can be errors of transcription. Or, as with the CPR (Calendar of Patent Rolls) or CFR (Calendar of Fine Rolls) they are only summaries of the documents, not full transcripts.

There are no published versions of the King's Bench Records, and only one very selective summary of Exchequer issues (as opposed to other classes of Exchequer document).


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 10:19:23
Hilary Jones
Yes Marie, Penn picks up the Forster allegation and quotes that Richard starved him for two days to get information. But we know that Forster claimed to have been imprisoned for much longer than he actually was because there is a land deal done by him during the time he alleges he was inside. So room there not to trust our Mr Forster. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:14:10 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.


Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Henry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of Henry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)


We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad having exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?


I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 10:27:55
Hilary Jones
Strangely enough the person who did torture people, or have them tortured, was the sainted More. He and other clergy were well known for keeping and torturing confessions out of heretics in their London basements. They were then prosecuted by the Church and executed. It became so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene.
And, to be honest, did Richard have the luxury of time to personally supervise torture? If this came from More we're back to the Tacitus 'monster'. H

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:14:10 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.


Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Henry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of Henry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)


We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad having exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?


I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 10:34:14
Hilary Jones
Nico I think he wants to be the Mantel of historical factual writing. And the way everything is stated as fact does remind me of Starkey, who, to be fair, has a deep knowledge of the later Tudors and should stick to that. Trouble is publishers don't care if stuff is historically correct, they want it to attract the sort of sales that Gregory has. The reviewers at the Telegraph or the Guardian don't known fact from fiction, they just like a good yarn that the clever Penn has unearthed and brought to the nation. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 22:10:06 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Sorry, I meant Dan Jones.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 21:58:23 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Marie, it is good to know that Richard Smith is able to communicate with schools in a way that could hopefully persuade teachers who rely on the book to introduce other perspectives to their students. Unfortunately, when Hilary said that Penn is Penguin's publishing director, I realized that writing to Penguin about changes to the book is probably a lost cause. Writing a bad book for your own company does seem like something of a conflict of interest, but my guess is that he was hoping for Dan Brown's sales, and tailored his book in that direction. Even in the small section I read, I detected a similarity in style.Nico


Marie wrote:Taking one point at a time:
1) Making schools aware: I imagine Richard Smith, the Society's Education Officer, will do precisely, in a diplomatic way, that if it is necessary. I understand he does a great job in providing schools with information.
2) Telling Penguin it's biased in the hope that they will force him to make changes. I admire your faith in human nature, but I don't think it's likely to do anything except make us look interfering.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:24:14 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It sounds like James V's regent  the Albany who fought at Pavia?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:14
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn

Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.

Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Hen ry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of H enry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)

We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad havin g exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?

I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront.. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.

Re: Thomas Penn and his PhD

2019-10-09 11:15:24
Hilary Jones
Thanks Christine that makes perfect sense! He built his first book around his thesis which is why there is quite a large section on Renaissance scholars. Best wishes also! H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 11:10:21 BST, Christine Headley lists@... [] <> wrote:


The British Library catalogue contains details of a large number of British PhDs - I don't know how far back it goes. You can download many of them for free, but unfortunately not Cambridge ones. Homepage is https://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do

Thomas Penn's was awarded in 2001, for 'Literary service at the court of Henry VII'.

Best wishes

Christine

On 07-Oct-19 4:45, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] wrote:

Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 11:38:24
Hilary Jones
Doug couldn't find your original email but the CPR is the Calendar of Patent Rolls and the CFR the Calendar of Fine Rolls. The latter is particularly useful for tracking IPMs and 'rewards'. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 04:45:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 11:52:08
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, I've found the entry in the CPR but there are lots of other people being rewarded at this time. Why single out Miles Forest?
There are two other Miles Forests extant at this time, father and son, both from Cambridge and Morborne Hunts. The father died in 1536, the son in 1558. The son was born about 1480. Now if you do a quick NA or BHOL search what you come up with is that they were both accused at various times from about 1500 of being involved in some rather dodgy and violent deeds. Is it possible that More came across them in his legal work and selected the name to be one of the 'dogged ruffians' who killed the boys? Just a thought. H


On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 00:58:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Thanks Eva.

I'm sure you never believed it, but all too many writers who take an anti-Richard stance swallow it uncritically. I suppose we are all more critical of information that we don't like the sound of than the stuff that is music to our ears, but this one really doesn't stand much scrutiny and doesn't do its disseminators a lot of credit.


To Stephen: I tend to agree with you about the tyrant. I too am inclined to think the remarks about the tyrant and the rack may be meant to relate to the Scottish imprisonment. The trouble is by the next century a family tradition had solidified in which Sir Henry had been imprisoned by Richard in the Tower - for ages, fed by a cat and tortured in the most peculiar way. The horse barnacles - tongs to nip the nostrils of an unwilling horse to force it to keep still - were the Wyatt family badge, and I suppose this was made up to explain it (and perhaps to explain Sir Henry's extraordinarily generously-sized nose).


To return to Miles Forrest: I looked for entries on him once, and I didn't find any payments made to him so Penn may well be mistaken there; muddling him with one of the other suspects, perhaps.

Besides, orders to pay individuals mostly don't tell you what service they'd performed. Unfortunately, however, some Ricardian writers have in the past used the same sort of "mysterious payments" to bolster their own theories, so that is now coming back to bite.

The annuity granted to Miles' widow and son, 5 marks (£3 6s 8d), is not very large and is completely in keeping with the sort of annuities that elderly retainers of his ilk or their families might expect to be granted so I hope Penn isn't trying to make something fishy out of that. At least he's not doing a Hicks/ Horrox and using it to suggest Mrs Forrest was the mother of one of Richard's illegitimate children (is he?).


Marie




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 11:52:48
Bale PAUL
"I've got tattoos and wear jeans and leather jacket, so you know I'm current and can be trusted" Jones!
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 8 Oct 2019, at 22:59, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Sorry, I meant Dan Jones.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 21:58:23 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Marie,it is good to know that Richard Smith is able to communicate with schools in a way that could hopefully persuade teachers who rely on the book to introduce other perspectives to their students. Unfortunately, when Hilary said that Penn is Penguin's publishing director, I realized that writing to Penguin about changes to the book is probably a lost cause. Writing a bad book for your own company does seem like something of a conflict of interest, but my guess is that he was hoping for Dan Brown's sales, and tailored his book in that direction. Even in the small section I read, I detected a similarity in style.Nico


Marie wrote:Taking one point at a time:
1) Making schools aware: I imagine Richard Smith, the Society's Education Officer, will do precisely, in a diplomatic way, that if it is necessary. I understand he does a great job in providing schools with information.
2) Telling Penguin it's biased in the hope that they will force him to make changes. I admire your faith in human nature, but I don't think it's likely to do anything except make us look interfering.
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 20:24:14 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


It sounds like James V's regent  the Albany who fought at Pavia?


Sent from Mail for Windows 10


From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: 08 October 2019 20:14
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn



Paul wrote:

Richard would certainly not have sat watching someone being tortured is the statement that upsets me the most.


Marie:

I agree. It's amazing that has been taken so seriously. At least Annette Carson's article on the Society website has shown the more far-fetched parts of the tradition - being tortured with horse barnacles, and starving but for a friendly cat who brought him a pigeon to his Tower cell every day - to be 17th century in origin. That seems to have stopped those particular gems being repeated.

When Annette looked into it, she could trace the origins of it back no further than a letter written a little after the death of Sir Henry Wyatt by his son Sir Thomas to his son, extolling Sir Hen ry, whom God had preserved "in prison from the hands of the tyrant that could find it in his heart to see him racked, from two years and more 'prisonment in Scotland in irons and stocks, from the dangers of sudden changes and commotions divers. . ." The tyrant isn't even named; it's not clear whether Sir Thomas is saying said tyrant did have Wyatt racked, or was simply prepared to have him racked if need be; and "see him racked" is just a construction anyway, like 'see it done' - it doesn't mean the tyrant was literally there even if the racking did occur. There are only two days after 13 June 1483 when we can place Richard at the Tower: 4-5 July 1483 as he prepared for his coronation, and 18 February 1484, which seems to have been a brief visit from Westminster, so when all this torture goggling is supposed to have occurred is quite hard to fathom.

The only imprisonment of H enry Wyatt of which there is any known record was by the Scots after Flodden. What seems clear is that he must have been free for at least part of Richard's reign to do good service to Henry Tudor because he started being appointed to substantial posts almost immediately after Bosworth. He is such an obscure figure before that that no one has been able to find him in a single record, so it is hard to fathom why Richard would have wasted so much effort on him is hard to fathom, or why he would have tried so much harder to get information out of Wyatt than he did from the influential, well connected and presumably much more useful John Forster (of whose imprisonment under Richard we have a first-hand account.)


We really don't know exactly what Sir Thomas Wyatt meant, and whether whatever he meant was accurate anyway. I can quite see Grandad havin g exaggerated the horrors of any periods of imprisonment, especially by the ogre Richard III, as he repeated the stories of his exciting past for the benefit of younger family members. And the fact that Sir Thomas doesn't name the tyrant strikes me as fishy. Was this maybe really some other monarch whom it wouldn't be safe to name?


I think we need to keep Forster's evidence to the forefront.. That is still simply an allegation, but it's genuine first-hand testimony of how Richard treated conspirators. No rack.









Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 12:03:32
mariewalsh2003

Stephen wrote:

If Forrest is possibly fictional then Will Slaughter must be  like the Green, Berry and Hill case.



Marie replies:

Miles is definitely historical - you may have missed my post quoting the grant of a small annuity to his widow and son. What I suspect is not historical, because I can't find it, is Penn's alleged payment to Miles from Richard for unspecified services.

Hilary, does Penn give a reference for this payment?



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 12:06:54
Stephen
More claimed that, of Forest and Dighton, one was long dead whilst the other confessed and was released. I think Forest was the first  yet his year of death was the same as More's.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 09 October 2019 11:54
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn

 
Hi Marie, I've found the entry in the CPR but there are lots of other people being rewarded at this time. Why single out Miles Forest?

There are two other Miles Forests extant at this time, father and son, both from Cambridge and Morborne Hunts. The father died in 1536, the son in 1558. The son was born about 1480. Now if you do a quick NA or BHOL search what you come up with is that they were both accused at various times from about 1500 of being involved in some rather dodgy and violent deeds. Is it possible that More came across them in his legal work and selected the name to be one of the 'dogged ruffians' who killed the boys? Just a thought. H



On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 00:58:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


 
Thanks Eva.
I'm sure you never believed it, but all too many writers who take an anti-Richard stance swallow it uncritically. I suppose we are all more critical of information that we don't like the sound of than the stuff that is music to our ears, but this one really doesn't stand much scrutiny and doesn't do its disseminators a lot of credit.

To Stephen:  I tend to agree with you about the tyrant. I too am inclined to think the remarks about the tyrant and the rack may be meant to relate to the Scottish imprisonment. The trouble is by the next century a family tradition had solidified in which Sir Henry had been imprisoned by Richard in the Tower - for ages, fed by a cat and tortured in the most peculiar way. The horse barnacles - tongs to nip the nostrils of an unwilling horse to force it to keep still - were the Wyatt family badge, and I suppose this was made up to explain it (and perhaps to explain Sir Henry's extraordinarily generously-sized nose).

To return to Miles Forrest: I  looked for entries on him once, and I didn't find any payments made to him so Penn may well be mistaken there; muddling him with one of the other suspects, perhaps.
Besides, orders to pay individuals mostly don't tell you what service they'd performed. Unfortunately, however, some Ricardian writers have in the past used the same sort of "mysterious payments" to bolster their own theories, so that is now coming back to bite.
The annuity granted to Miles' widow and son, 5 marks (£3 6s 8d), is not very large and is completely in keeping with the sort of annuities that elderly retainers of his ilk or their families might expect to be granted so I hope Penn isn't trying to make something fishy out of that. At least he's not doing a Hicks/ Horrox and using it to suggest Mrs Forrest was the mother of one of Richard's illegitimate children (is he?).

Marie







Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 12:07:59
Nicholas Brown
Hilary: I think he wants to be the Mantel of historical factual writing. And the way everything is stated as fact does remind me of Starkey, who, to be fair, has a deep knowledge of the later Tudors and should stick to that. Trouble is publishers don't care if stuff is historically correct, they want it to attract the sort of sales that Gregory has. The reviewers at the Telegraph or the Guardian don't known fact from fiction, they just like a good yarn that the clever Penn has unearthed and brought to the nation.

That may well be his aspiration. If so, what he misunderstands is that that Hilary Mantel and Philippa Gregory admit they are writing fiction (although PG can get close to the blurring the line and when she appears in documentaries and says she believes that some of her wilder stories are true). Writing a novel gives you considerable leeway, but if Penn considers himself a historian then the hallmarks of a good book are proper research that includes original sources and interpretation preferably with a unique slant on the subject. Anything else is at best mediocre, and peddling untrue myths as facts equals a bad book (inho anyway).

Penn did well with The Winter King and his writing style is engaging, so he should go back to the Tudors which he knows well and start looking for new material there. If that doesn't attract the sales he hopes for then he should give fiction a try.
Nico


On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 11:38:27 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug couldn't find your original email but the CPR is the Calendar of Patent Rolls and the CFR the Calendar of Fine Rolls. The latter is particularly useful for tracking IPMs and 'rewards'. H
On Monday, 7 October 2019, 04:45:51 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Just for fun I looked at the back of my paperback copy of Winter King to see what sources were listed. For primary manuscript sources, Penn lists: Four lines worth of manuscripts from the British Library London, among which are the Cottonian and Harleian 69, 78 and 283; Four sources from St. John's College Cambridge include two accounts from Lady Margaret Beaufort (her Treasurer accounts and Chamberlain accounts), Fourteen manuscript sources from the National Archives Kew including ones from Chancery, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Exchequer and Lord Chamberlain, and finishes off with one source from the Westminster Abbey Muniments. There are four and 1/2 pages of printed primary sources and another 14 of secondary sources. A quick check tells me he was born in 1974. Presuming he attained his first degree at around 22, that would have been in 1996. Winter King was published in 2011 and the back blurb of my paperback copy says Thomas Penn has a Ph.D. degree in early Tudor history from Cambridge University (no date given). I don't know how the British system differs, if it even does, from the one here in the U.S., but the progression is: Bachelor's/Baccalaureate degree, Master's degree and finally a Ph.D. There's usually an interval of 4-7 years between the Bachelor's and Master's degrees, with at least that length of time between the Master's and Doctorate. Do we know happen to know what the subject of Penn's doctoral thesis was? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Mary, yes of course he lists the usual like the CPR, and More is there as a Primary Source as is Mancini! It would have taken him years and years to read all the sources he quotes. There is no discussion on the validity of sources, even in the introduction; if I've missed it I apologise. It reads like a novel, reacting no doubt to those who said they couldn't bear footnotes in 'The Winter King' and that HT was 'so dull' - (well he was!) But, as we all know, you can construct a book by just using secondary sources and quote their Primary Sources. So I looked at the Secondary Sources. JAH is quoted only once with regard to Desmond of all things, Ross actually not a lot, but Hicks...... starting with Anne Neville....... so we get how acquisiti ve Richard hounded the Countess of Oxford and Horrox at her most hostile. And quite a selective bit of Anne Sutton such as Richard's piety and EW. He clearly wanted drama; but unfortunately Shakespeare got in first. As one reviewer of his other book said he's clearly looking to be a TV presenter; the new Starkey perhaps?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 12:19:35
Hilary Jones
Yes, Stephen Miles Forest husband of Joan in the CPR seems to have just died (Sep 1484). I'm not saying these were the same Miles Forest, I'm saying these two happen to have been 'rogues' so More could have chosen the name from his casework and someone else has validated the identity by finding this in the CPR. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 12:10:00 BST, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

More claimed that, of Forest and Dighton, one was long dead whilst the other confessed and was released. I think Forest was the first  yet his year of death was the same as More's.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 09 October 2019 11:54
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn


Hi Marie, I've found the entry in the CPR but there are lots of other people being rewarded at this time. Why single out Miles Forest?

There are two other Miles Forests extant at this time, father and son, both from Cambridge and Morborne Hunts. The father died in 1536, the son in 1558. The son was born about 1480. Now if you do a quick NA or BHOL search what you come up with is that they were both accused at various times from about 1500 of being involved in some rather dodgy and violent deeds. Is it possible that More came across them in his legal work and selected the name to be one of the 'dogged ruffians' who killed the boys? Just a thought. H

On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 00:58:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Thanks Eva.
I'm sure you never believed it, but all too many writers who take an anti-Richard stance swallow it uncritically. I suppose we are all more critical of information that we don't like the sound of than the stuff that is music to our ears, but this one really doesn't stand much scrutiny and doesn't do its disseminators a lot of credit.

To Stephen: I tend to agree with you about the tyrant. I too am inclined to think the remarks about the tyrant and the rack may be meant to relate to the Scottish imprisonment. The trouble is by the next century a family tradition had solidified in which Sir Henry had been imprisoned by Richard in the Tower - for ages, fed by a cat and tortured in the most peculiar way. The horse barnacles - tongs to nip the nostrils of an unwilling horse to force it to keep still - were the Wyatt family badge, and I suppose this was made up to explain it (and perhaps to explain Sir Henry's extraordinarily generously-sized nose).

To return to Miles Forrest: I looked for entries on him once, and I didn't find any payments made to him so Penn may well be mistaken there; muddling him with one of the other suspects, perhaps.
Besides, orders to pay individuals mostly don't tell you what service they'd performed. Unfortunately, however, some Ricardian writers have in the past used the same sort of "mysterious payments" to bolster their own theories, so that is now coming back to bite.
The annuity granted to Miles' widow and son, 5 marks (£3 6s 8d), is not very large and is completely in keeping with the sort of annuities that elderly retainers of his ilk or their families might expect to be granted so I hope Penn isn't trying to make something fishy out of that. At least he's not doing a Hicks/ Horrox and using it to suggest Mrs Forrest was the mother of one of Richard's illegitimate children (is he?)..

Marie



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 12:20:23
Hilary Jones
I'll have a look. He certainly only appears in the CPR once. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 12:03:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Stephen wrote:

If Forrest is possibly fictional then Will Slaughter must be  like the Green, Berry and Hill case.



Marie replies:

Miles is definitely historical - you may have missed my post quoting the grant of a small annuity to his widow and son. What I suspect is not historical, because I can't find it, is Penn's alleged payment to Miles from Richard for unspecified services.

Hilary, does Penn give a reference for this payment?



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 13:02:21
Hilary Jones
Hi Marie, he gives two references both TNA
The first is PSO 1/58/2963 but I can only drill down to PSO 1/58 which is Signet and Other Warrants of the Privy Seal 6th March 1484 - 18 November 1484the other is C81/1392/15 Chancery warrants under small and great seal Richard III 1484-5 together with Harleian 433 (Horrox). Does the confirming connection come from Horrox I wonder? H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 12:20:26 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I'll have a look. He certainly only appears in the CPR once. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 12:03:36 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Stephen wrote:

If Forrest is possibly fictional then Will Slaughter must be  like the Green, Berry and Hill case.



Marie replies:

Miles is definitely historical - you may have missed my post quoting the grant of a small annuity to his widow and son. What I suspect is not historical, because I can't find it, is Penn's alleged payment to Miles from Richard for unspecified services.

Hilary, does Penn give a reference for this payment?



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 13:55:11
mariewalsh2003


Marie replies to Stephen and Hilary:


A) There clearly was a Miles Forest who died not long after the disappearance of the Princes and who was a retainer of Richard's, just as More indicates (though whether he rotted away piecemeal in St. Martin's I wouldn't like to say). We know that because Richard granted his widow and son an annuity out from the lordship of Barnard Castle.


B) Richard employed at least one other Forest: Henry Forest appears not only as a Yeoman of the Crown during Richard's reign, but as a member of Prince Edward's household in that brief set of his household accounts we have for the summer of 1483 (he was to be paid 33s 4d for his half year wages).


C) There is only one reference to Miles Forest indexed in the volume of the CPR covering Richard's reign, and it is the grant of a small annuity to his widow and their son Edward. If you have found another entry, not indexed, with a payment to Miles himself please could you let me have a page reference?


D) My brief perusals into the future gave me an Edward Forest in the Cambridgeshire type of area succeeded by a Miles, so it looked to me as though these were probably the son and grandson or perhaps elder and younger son of Richard's Miles Forest, relocated to a different part of the country. I haven't taken down details of the entries so can't comment on their behaviour or dates of birth.


I don't think we should be scared that Miles existed, or that he seems to have belonged to the Teesdale area and had probably served Richard up there for years (no surviving accounts for the lordship of Barnard Castle, unfortunately). This has been known for a very long time, and has been the basis of Ricardian theories as well as More's accusations.




Stephen wrote:

More claimed that, of Forest and Dighton, one was long dead whilst the other confessed and was released. I think Forest was the first  yet his year of death was the same as More's.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 09 October 2019 11:54
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn


Hi Marie, I've found the entry in the CPR but there are lots of other people being rewarded at this time. Why single out Miles Forest?

There are two other Miles Forests extant at this time, father and son, both from Cambridge and Morborne Hunts. The father died in 1536, the son in 1558. The son was born about 1480. Now if you do a quick NA or BHOL search what you come up with is that they were both accused at various times from about 1500 of being involved in some rather dodgy and violent deeds. Is it possible that More came across them in his legal work and selected the name to be one of the 'dogged ruffians' who killed the boys? Just a thought. H

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 14:18:31
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:Hi Marie, he gives two references both TNAThe first is PSO 1/58/2963 but I can only drill down to PSO 1/58 which is Signet and Other Warrants of the Privy Seal 6th March 1484 - 18 November 1484

the other is C81/1392/15 Chancery warrants under small and great seal Richard III 1484-5 together with Harleian 433 (Horrox). Does the confirming connection come from Horrox I wonder?


Marie writes:

1) HARLEY 433. There are two entries relating to Miles in Harley 433. (which, to remind us all, is the register of the Privy Seal Office, where they recorded the documents they had issued) . One records the issue of a warrant to the Chancellor to grant the annuity to Joan Forest and her son Edward. The other records the issue of an instruction to the receiver of Barnard Castle to pay that annuity.

I think what he means by Harley 433 (Horrox) is the published version of Harley 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox and Peter Hamond.


2) C 81/1392/15. This will be a warrant, under the Privy Seal, from the King to the Chancellor to issue letters patent. I have taken a look in Rhoada Edwards' Itinerary, as she used the C 81s to help trace Richard's movements as king. This particular item was issued on 18 September, so after Miles' death. Therefore it cannot be a payment to him, but must be part of the paperwork issued in relation to the grant of annuity to his widow.


3) PSO 1/58/2963. The TNA description of the PSO series is thus:-

"This series contains files of general warrants, warrants for certificates of homage, and fiats for protections, which were prepared by the Clerks of the Signet and forwarded to the Office of the Keeper of the Privy Seal as his authority for making out a writ of privy seal. The collection is very incomplete as these warrants were generally retained by the several Lords Privy Seal.

These signet warrants were almost all written in response to petitions. All grants of annuities, lands, offices, wardships, and pardons, and many of justice, were secured by petitioning the king. The most important warrants, authorising grants of land, annuities, or bishops' temporalities, were sent to the Keeper of the Privy Seal because the Chancellor needed a privy seal warrant to authorise him to issue such grants under the great seal.

Other signet letters sent to the Keeper of the Privy Seal were for royal gifts of minor importance, and for minor grants (e.g. letters of passage, permitting the bearer to leave England by a certain port). In such cases, the privy seal warrant acted as an immediate authority to the relevant royal officials, and was not sent on to the chancellor for issue under the great seal."

So it sounds as though this might be an additional grant, made under the Privy Seal, but given the date range for the file it could well be post Miles' mortem again. Should I try to order a copy?


.


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 14:35:37
mariewalsh2003

P. S. Duh! It's just occurred to me. That PSO item will probably be the warrant, recorded in Harley 433, to the Receiver of Barnard Castle to pay the annuity .


Hilary, what exactly does Penn say about Miles Forest? If it's not too long, would you be able to quote it?

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 14:48:04
Hilary Jones
Thanks a million!! So really they don't tell us anything more than the CPR. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 14:32:42 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Hi Marie, he gives two references both TNAThe first is PSO 1/58/2963 but I can only drill down to PSO 1/58 which is Signet and Other Warrants of the Privy Seal 6th March 1484 - 18 November 1484

the other is C81/1392/15 Chancery warrants under small and great seal Richard III 1484-5 together with Harleian 433 (Horrox). Does the confirming connection come from Horrox I wonder?


Marie writes:

1) HARLEY 433. There are two entries relating to Miles in Harley 433. (which, to remind us all, is the register of the Privy Seal Office, where they recorded the documents they had issued) . One records the issue of a warrant to the Chancellor to grant the annuity to Joan Forest and her son Edward. The other records the issue of an instruction to the receiver of Barnard Castle to pay that annuity.

I think what he means by Harley 433 (Horrox) is the published version of Harley 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox and Peter Hamond.


2) C 81/1392/15. This will be a warrant, under the Privy Seal, from the King to the Chancellor to issue letters patent. I have taken a look in Rhoada Edwards' Itinerary, as she used the C 81s to help trace Richard's movements as king. This particular item was issued on 18 September, so after Miles' death. Therefore it cannot be a payment to him, but must be part of the paperwork issued in relation to the grant of annuity to his widow.


3) PSO 1/58/2963. The TNA description of the PSO series is thus:-

"This series contains files of general warrants, warrants for certificates of homage, and fiats for protections, which were prepared by the Clerks of the Signet and forwarded to the Office of the Keeper of the Privy Seal as his authority for making out a writ of privy seal. The collection is very incomplete as these warrants were generally retained by the several Lords Privy Seal.

These signet warrants were almost all written in response to petitions. All grants of annuities, lands, offices, wardships, and pardons, and many of justice, were secured by petitioning the king. The most important warrants, authorising grants of land, annuities, or bishops' temporalities, were sent to the Keeper of the Privy Seal because the Chancellor needed a privy seal warrant to authorise him to issue such grants under the great seal.

Other signet letters sent to the Keeper of the Privy Seal were for royal gifts of minor importance, and for minor grants (e.g. letters of passage, permitting the bearer to leave England by a certain port). In such cases, the privy seal warrant acted as an immediate authority to the relevant royal officials, and was not sent on to the chancellor for issue under the great seal."

So it sounds as though this might be an additional grant, made under the Privy Seal, but given the date range for the file it could well be post Miles' mortem again. Should I try to order a copy?


.


Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 15:28:38
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Thank you very much! I knew I'd seen them expanded previously, but I couldn't remember to what and so couldn't any part of them for a google search. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug couldn't find your original email but the CPR is the Calendar of Patent Rolls and the CFR the Calendar of Fine Rolls. The latter is particularly useful for tracking IPMs and 'rewards'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 15:43:23
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I remember when I was reading Churchill's Marlborough that Sir Winston wrote about the conditions of imprisonment John Churchill, and others, underwent when they were clapped into the Tower and those conditions sounded more like someone who'd today be under house arrest or wear one of those electronic tracking devices. The prisoners (in the late 17th century) could receive visitors, have their food brought in if they wished, their own furnishings if they had the money. Might any of those conditions have applied to Forster's time in the Tower? Because, FWIW, it does appear to me as if Forster was being held, not just because of any possible crimes he may have committed, but mainly to prevent EW from sending/receiving messages via her Treasurer or, more importantly, sending money to her supporters. Don't know if it makes a difference. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Marie, Penn picks up the Forster allegation and quotes that Richard starved him for two days to get information. But we know that Forster claimed to have been imprisoned for much longer than he actually was because there is a land deal done by him during the time he alleges he was inside. So room there not to trust our Mr Forster.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 15:46:34
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Strangely enough the person who did torture people, or have them tortured, was the sainted More. He and other clergy were well known for keeping and torturing confessions out of heretics in their London basements. They were then prosecuted by the Church and executed. It became so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. And, to be honest, did Richard have the luxury of time to personally supervise torture? If this came from More we're back to the Tacitus 'monster'. More would definitely know all about sitting around and watching people suffer then, wouldn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 15:51:47
Pamela Bain
Like the Inquisition.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2019, at 9:51 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Strangely enough the person who did torture people, or have them tortured, was the sainted More. He and other clergy were well known for keeping and torturing confessions out of heretics in their London basements. They were then prosecuted by the Church and executed. It became so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. And, to be honest, did Richard have the luxury of time to personally supervise torture? If this came from More we're back to the Tacitus 'monster'. More would definitely know all about sitting around and watching people suffer then, wouldn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 16:22:32
ricard1an
Hear hear Nico,spot on.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 18:04:18
Bale PAUL
Just the sort of grant you would give to someone who had done a deed you wanted kept secret.More had little idea about human behaviour. Just plucked the name out of a list Morton gave him maybe!"Well Thomas, Miles Forest was one of Richard's men, not very high standing. He'll do. Or maybe he was the one arrested, confessed, then sent on his way by Tudor to have family and descendants.All very logical! NOT!Saint or not, the lovely man one sees in A Man For All Seasons didn't exist either!
Bale Paul Trevorbale.paul-trevor@...



On 9 Oct 2019, at 14:50, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


Marie replies to Stephen and Hilary:


A) There clearly was a Miles Forest who died not long after the disappearance of the Princes and who was a retainer of Richard's, just as More indicates (though whether he rotted away piecemeal in St. Martin's I wouldn't like to say). We know that because Richard granted his widow and son an annuity out from the lordship of Barnard Castle.


B) Richard employed at least one other Forest: Henry Forest appears not only as a Yeoman of the Crown during Richard's reign, but as a member of Prince Edward's household in that brief set of his household accounts we have for the summer of 1483 (he was to be paid 33s 4d for his half year wages).


C) There is only one reference to Miles Forest indexed in the volume of the CPR covering Richard's reign, and it is the grant of a small annuity to his widow and their son Edward. If you have found another entry, not indexed, with a payment to Miles himself please could you let me have a page reference?


D) My brief perusals into the future gave me an Edward Forest in the Cambridgeshire type of area succeeded by a Miles, so it looked to me as though these were probably the son and grandson or perhaps elder and younger son of Richard's Miles Forest, relocated to a different part of the country. I haven't taken down details of the entries so can't comment on their behaviour or dates of birth.


I don't think we should be scared that Miles existed, or that he seems to have belonged to the Teesdale area and had probably served Richard up there for years (no surviving accounts for the lordship of Barnard Castle, unfortunately). This has been known for a very long time, and has been the basis of Ricardian theories as well as More's accusations.




Stephen wrote:

More claimed that, of Forest and Dighton, one was long dead whilst the other confessed and was released. I think Forest was the first  yet his year of death was the same as More's.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 09 October 2019 11:54
To:
Subject: Re: Thomas Penn


Hi Marie, I've found the entry in the CPR but there are lots of other people being rewarded at this time. Why single out Miles Forest?

There are two other Miles Forests extant at this time, father and son, both from Cambridge and Morborne Hunts. The father died in 1536, the son in 1558. The son was born about 1480. Now if you do a quick NA or BHOL search what you come up with is that they were both accused at various times from about 1500 of being involved in some rather dodgy and violent deeds. Is it possible that More came across them in his legal work and selected the name to be one of the 'dogged ruffians' who killed the boys? Just a thought. H



Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 20:21:27
mariewalsh2003

Paul wrote:

Just the sort of grant you would give to someone who had done a deed you wanted kept secret.

More had little idea about human behaviour. Just plucked the name out of a list Morton gave him maybe!"Well Thomas, Miles Forest was one of Richard's men, not very high standing. He'll do.
Marie adds:It just occurred to me that Henry Vaughan's half-year wages of 33s 4d gives him an annual salary of 5 marks, the exact same sum as the annuity granted to Miles Forest's widow. I suspect this was also the size of Miles' annual wage, and Richard was just making sure that his widow didn't go without.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-09 21:22:06
Nance Crawford
I don't have time, today, to see if the book is on Amazon U.S. (amazing what isn't). I do have an Amazon UK account. Brilliant, Paul and Hillary. Looking forward to meeting members of the group and hope it happens within the year. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/8/2019 8:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

I'm certainly going to do a review which will not be positive :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 15:08:53 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in? I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not.. It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here...). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR... If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 01:05:49
Pamela Bain
It is on Amazon now. I will try and comment!
On Oct 9, 2019, at 3:50 PM, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

I don't have time, today, to see if the book is on Amazon U.S. (amazing what isn't). I do have an Amazon UK account. Brilliant, Paul and Hillary. Looking forward to meeting members of the group and hope it happens within the year. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/8/2019 8:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

I'm certainly going to do a review which will not be positive :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 15:08:53 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in? I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not... It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction.. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here....). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR... If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 10:26:51
Hilary Jones
It's just another version of the pension Richard gave to the Burghs for looking after his Edward - one of the most touching entries.
I do wonder whether More plucked the name Miles Forest from those who were before the courts in about 1509 and it was sometime later when someone said 'aha there's a Miles Forest who died in 1484 and Richard gave his widow a pension' Sounds like the sort of thing Horrox would do. After all how on earth would More have seen the Warrants or the CPR? H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 20:25:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul wrote:

Just the sort of grant you would give to someone who had done a deed you wanted kept secret.

More had little idea about human behaviour. Just plucked the name out of a list Morton gave him maybe!"Well Thomas, Miles Forest was one of Richard's men, not very high standing. He'll do.
Marie adds:It just occurred to me that Henry Vaughan's half-year wages of 33s 4d gives him an annual salary of 5 marks, the exact same sum as the annuity granted to Miles Forest's widow. I suspect this was also the size of Miles' annual wage, and Richard was just making sure that his widow didn't go without.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 10:34:07
Hilary Jones
Yes indeed Doug, the dungeon in a castle like Warwick (which I've seen) would have been much worse. Some prisoners were kept in the Tower for years, particularly foreign hostages. Different for suspected traitors who were nobodies. I doubt Forster suffered greatly. And BTW Penn again misquotes because he says Forster was starved by Richard; even Forster says his arrest and imprisonment was by 'servants of Richard'. I know it's a subtle difference but again it can be read that Richard was actually 'sitting there watching'. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 15:46:01 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I remember when I was reading Churchill's Marlborough that Sir Winston wrote about the conditions of imprisonment John Churchill, and others, underwent when they were clapped into the Tower and those conditions sounded more like someone who'd today be under house arrest or wear one of those electronic tracking devices. The prisoners (in the late 17th century) could receive visitors, have their food brought in if they wished, their own furnishings if they had the money. Might any of those conditions have applied to Forster's time in the Tower? Because, FWIW, it does appear to me as if Forster was being held, not just because of any possible crimes he may have committed, but mainly to prevent EW from sending/receiving messages via her Treasurer or, more importantly, sending money to her supporters. Don't know if it makes a difference. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Marie, Penn picks up the Forster allegation and quotes that Richard starved him for two days to get information. But we know that Forster claimed to have been imprisoned for much longer than he actually was because there is a land deal done by him during the time he alleges he was inside. So room there not to trust our Mr Forster.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 10:36:23
Hilary Jones
Yes he would. It's one of the things that Hilary Mantel mentions in her novel. It's one of the most unflattering portraits of More and, even though it is a novel, it's one of the most accurate. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 15:51:02 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Strangely enough the person who did torture people, or have them tortured, was the sainted More. He and other clergy were well known for keeping and torturing confessions out of heretics in their London basements. They were then prosecuted by the Church and executed. It became so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. And, to be honest, did Richard have the luxury of time to personally supervise torture? If this came from More we're back to the Tacitus 'monster'. More would definitely know all about sitting around and watching people suffer then, wouldn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 10:37:12
Hilary Jones
Absolutely! Some of our supposed 'saints' were not very saintly. H
On Wednesday, 9 October 2019, 15:52:20 BST, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

Like the Inquisition.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2019, at 9:51 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Strangely enough the person who did torture people, or have them tortured, was the sainted More. He and other clergy were well known for keeping and torturing confessions out of heretics in their London basements. They were then prosecuted by the Church and executed. It became so bad that a young Henry VIII had to intervene. And, to be honest, did Richard have the luxury of time to personally supervise torture? If this came from More we're back to the Tacitus 'monster'. More would definitely know all about sitting around and watching people suffer then, wouldn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 16:37:02
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Considering what Forster likely knew about where EW's money came from and more importantly, where it went, I can't see him being chained to a wall for the rats to enjoy. More likely a small room with occasional trips, well-guarded, out to enjoy the Tower gardens. I can understand a reader possibly taking a phrase such as your starved by Richard to mean that Richard himself starved someone, but one would think a person with a doctorate in Early Tudor History would make it clear that didn't happen and what was meant was it was done on Richard's orders. Something tells me that anyone who apparently so whole-heartedly buys into the Tudor myth likely doesn't do subtle. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes indeed Doug, the dungeon in a castle like Warwick (which I've seen) would have been much worse. Some prisoners were kept in the Tower for years, particularly foreign hostages.. Different for suspected traitors who were nobodies. I doubt Forster suffered greatly. And BTW Penn again misquotes because he says Forster was starved by Richard; even Forster says his arrest and imprisonment was by 'servants of Richard'. I know it's a subtle difference but again it can be read that Richard was actually 'sitting there watching'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-10 16:39:26
Doug Stamate
That beatification is carrying a very heavy load... Hilary wrote: Yes he would. It's one of the things that Hilary Mantel mentions in her novel. It's one of the most unflattering portraits of More and, even though it is a novel, it's one of the most accurate.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-11 10:39:09
bale.paul-trevor@...
I'm quite disappointed as the book is printed on decent paper so won't yellow fast, and smells nice. Then I read the introduction, and while Penn has a fluid literary style, it already shows where his book will be leading us, and it isn't to history.  Most of the population weren't devastated by endless civil war, as he suggests, well for starters the WOTR were bursts of fighting every few years, there is no mention of the Yorks having the better claim to the throne than Lancaster, or that the red rose wasn't associated with Lancaster and the name WOTR given the period until Walter Scott, and putting régicide at the end of a long list of accusations against the brothers leaves me with no doubt as to who he is referring. I guess my Amazon review will not be pretty!


Richard liveth yet! Le 10 oct. 2019 à 02:07 +0200, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>, a écrit :

It is on Amazon now. I will try and comment!
On Oct 9, 2019, at 3:50 PM, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ  

I don't have time, today, to see if the book is on Amazon U.S. (amazing what isn't). I do have an Amazon UK account.   Brilliant, Paul and Hillary. Looking forward to meeting members of the group and hope it happens within the year.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/8/2019 8:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn  

I'm certainly going to do a review which will not be positive :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 15:08:53 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

 

There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in?  I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not... It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction.. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

 

  Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here....). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

      Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR... If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering?   I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to  purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug   Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum.  But he could have been doing it for years and years.    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-11 11:02:06
Pamela Bain
And much more eloquent than mine!
On Oct 11, 2019, at 4:39 AM, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

I'm quite disappointed as the book is printed on decent paper so won't yellow fast, and smells nice. Then I read the introduction, and while Penn has a fluid literary style, it already shows where his book will be leading us, and it isn't to history. Most of the population weren't devastated by endless civil war, as he suggests, well for starters the WOTR were bursts of fighting every few years, there is no mention of the Yorks having the better claim to the throne than Lancaster, or that the red rose wasn't associated with Lancaster and the name WOTR given the period until Walter Scott, and putting régicide at the end of a long list of accusations against the brothers leaves me with no doubt as to who he is referring. I guess my Amazon review will not be pretty!


Richard liveth yet! Le 10 oct. 2019 à 02:07 +0200, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <>, a écrit :

It is on Amazon now. I will try and comment!
On Oct 9, 2019, at 3:50 PM, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

ÿ

I don't have time, today, to see if the book is on Amazon U.S. (amazing what isn't). I do have an Amazon UK account. Brilliant, Paul and Hillary. Looking forward to meeting members of the group and hope it happens within the year. ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> Reply-To: <> To: <> Sent: 10/8/2019 8:41:38 AM Subject: Re: Re: Thomas Penn

I'm certainly going to do a review which will not be positive :) :) H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 15:08:53 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

There is a Facebook page for the publisher which I'm going to be inundating with corrections once I get going on the book. Anyone care to join in? I think his position as publishing director probably got the book through to publication without any independent eyes or editing involved. Mr. Penn needs taking to task. Paul


Richard liveth yet! Le 8 oct. 2019 à 14:41 +0200, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>, a écrit :

He's publishing director at Penguin Nico. I agree, it adds absolutely nothing on anything, not even a new slant which to be fair some authors such as Skidmore and Horsepool have tried, whether we agree or not.... It reads like a mid-century GCE history answer; there is no debate, no discussion of evidence, just what Thomas Penn says is the truth. It's appalling historical practice - at least Philippa Gregory says she writes fiction.. I just think he has used his position to go on a huge ego trip.
BTW I wonder whether his tutor at Cambridge was Starkey? They teach cross college there. H
On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 12:34:09 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Nance wrote: Seems as though the Penguin Monarch Edw. V book is the one that should be vetted by members of the Society - we don't need the Society's permission to request pre-publication look-see. Anybody know where to direct requests, comments, etc. at the publisher? Can't aim a blackball if it's not in the naked eye (yes, bad analogy. It's late, here.....). Also, with a reference to the author's present, apparently woeful messing with fact, whoever handles bulk orders for schools hould be warned.
I think it would be a good idea if the RIII Society did review the Edward V book, and find some way of making schools and Penguin aware if it does turn out to be a Tudor biased account that reflects unfairly on Richard. If it hasn't already been released, Penguin could ask him to re-edit it with a more balanced viewpoint, and if it has, he could make the changes for subsequent editions. I have no idea what is in the book or when it will be available, but I suspect it will be an cut and paste rehash of the relevant chapter in The Brother's York with a bit of Hicks thrown in.

I had a quick look at The Brothers York yesterday in Waterstones. The chapter on the 1483 doesn't give the author's opinion on Richard's guilt or innocence with respect to the Princes, but the fact that Penn mostly regurgitates a combination of More, Mancini, Croyland etc with no real analysis of the sources strongly hints that he accepts the 'traditionalist' view. He also is keen to point out Miles Forest's rewards for unspecified services; he doesn't actually accuse, but the tone left me with no doubt what he thought. He offered absolutely nothing new on the subject at all, so I am not optimistic that the school kids who read it will get a balanced or enlightened account of Richard III or the events of 1483.
If there is any silver lining in this, Waterstones are not making much effort to promote The Brothers York. I had to look quite hard to find a few signed copies on a display that you could easily blink and miss.
Nico







On Tuesday, 8 October 2019, 07:18:50 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I don't know, but I presumed those manuscript primary sources weren't available via, say, Penguin? Could you expand CFR and CPR? I tried googling them, but only got Council on Foreign Relations and the medical CPR... If one works from the proposition that Penn began work on his doctoral thesis almost immediately with his receiving a BA, that would mean that it took him nearly a decade and a half to put Winter King into publishable form. Which, if one was being very charitable, might explain his present offering? I'll still keep an eye out for the book at the library, but as of now anyway, have no desire to purchase what appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of pro-Tudor propaganda. Doug Hilary wrote: Yes Doug he seems to have invented that strange category of Printed Primary Sources. So the King's Bench and Exchequer are Primary Sources but the CPR, Croyland, Mancini and More are 'Printed' (interestingly no CFR). And of course an awful lot of the stuff listed, particularly to do with London, can be got at through BHOL or the NA so I don't think many of us are conned into thinking that he looked at the actual documents, as a Ross, for example, would have had to have done.. Re his degree, he'd take 3 years to get his BA but Cambridge (and Oxford) award an automatic MA to all their students a year after graduation, you don't have to study it's just another ceremony where you 'swap' gowns. So he probably went straight into his Ph.D which takes 4 years minimum. But he could have been doing it for years and years.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-11 16:57:31
Doug Stamate
Paul, From all I've read here, I have to say my greatest disappointment is Penn's apparent abject failure to recognize that the received history of the period might not be exactly what happened. Your remark about regicide caused me to do a quick review of the aftermath of Tewksbury. I started with the Wikipedia article (I know, I know!) and immediately came across a couple of interesting items. To start of with, in the section titled Background Henry VI is described in the article at one point as ...the weak, intermittently insane Lancastrian King Henry VI. and in the section Edward's landing and the death of Warwick asThe unfortunate and by now feeble Henry VI.... Now, we know that Henry suffered from something, the question being what. We also know that in 1471 he would have been 50 years old and admittedly the previous few years likely hadn't been easy on him, physically or mentally. The important point, though, is that, at least according to the contributor/s, Henry at this point wasn't strong either mentally or physically. Then I found this in the section titled Aftermath of the battle. The last sentence reads A few days later Queen Margaret sent word to Edward from her refuge that she was at his commandment with Rowse's Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses being given as the source. IOW, with the death of her son after the battle she'd given up  completely. The next item is from the section titled Fauconburg's repulse where the next-to-last sentence reads: Like Margaret, he [Fauconburg] appeared to be dispirited by the news of Tewksbury and the Prince's death, and later rather tamely surrendered himself and his ships. Yet another person giving up! The last item is from the section titled The end of the Lancastrian Royal family. It starts off with Edward entering London on 21 May ...with the captive Queen Margaret beside him in a chariot, then goes on to state Henry died that night at the hands of Richard before backtracking and laying Henry's death on Edward. However, the last sentence of this section is The deposed King's death was announced in public that he had died of pure displeasure and melancholy,' but few believed this. (I didn't write that!) Now, here we have a 50 year-old man who's suffered for nearly two decades from some sort of ailment that definitely affected him mentally and p;ossibly physically; who has spent almost all of the past 5-6 years in captivity (certainly closely guarded) and during the year before his second capture was wandering around the countryside a wanted fugitive. The point I'm trying to make though, is that to flatly state that Henry was killed on Edward's orders isn't history  rather it's a fetishization of near contemporary sources. We have Prince Edward's mother giving up after his death; we have the most talented Lancastrian commander doing the same. Why would it be so unusual to expect the same sort of response from his father? A man who's been described as being both physically and mentally in a weakened state? Now, if I can find these sort of things with around 10 minutes searching/reading, it's certainly not too much to expect someone such as Penn, whose Winter King showed him capable of accurate and in-depth research, to come up with something other than a regurgitation of what everyone knows! Or is it? Doug (apologies for the length) Paul wrote: I'm quite disappointed as the book is printed on decent paper so won't yellow fast, and smells nice. Then I read the introduction, and while Penn has a fluid literary style, it already shows where his book will be leading us, and it isn't to history. Most of the population weren't devastated by endless civil war, as he suggests, well for starters the WOTR were bursts of fighting every few years, there is no mention of the Yorks having the better claim to the throne than Lancaster, or that the red rose wasn't associated with Lancaster and the name WOTR given the period until Walter Scott, and putting régicide at the end of a long list of accusations against the brothers leaves me with no doubt as to who he is referring. I guess my Amazon review will not be pretty!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-11 18:29:34
bale.paul-trevor@...
Yes Doug, It's so disappointing showing up how sloppy his work on this book has been. I just looked at the illustrations and one of which shows the document signed by Richard and Buckingham the two men who « usurped » Edward V's throne. And usurped is also attached to Edward IV becoming king. Something which of course Henry VII didn't do! That was just plain theft!


Richard liveth yet! Le 11 oct. 2019 à 17:57 +0200, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <>, a écrit :

        Paul, From all I've read here, I have to say my greatest disappointment is Penn's apparent abject failure to recognize that the received history of the period might not be exactly what happened. Your remark about regicide caused me to do a quick review of the aftermath of Tewksbury. I started with the Wikipedia article (I know, I know!) and immediately came across a couple of interesting items. To start of with, in the section titled Background Henry VI is described in the article at one point as ...the weak,  intermittently insane Lancastrian King Henry VI. and in the section Edward's landing and the death of Warwick asThe unfortunate and by now feeble Henry VI.... Now, we know that Henry suffered from something, the question being what. We also know that in 1471 he would have been 50 years old and admittedly the previous few years likely hadn't been easy on him, physically or mentally. The important point, though, is that, at least according to the contributor/s, Henry at this point wasn't strong either mentally or physically. Then I found this in the section titled Aftermath of the battle. The last sentence reads A few days later Queen Margaret sent word to Edward from her refuge that she was at his commandment with Rowse's Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses being given as the source. IOW, with the death of her son after the battle she'd given up  completely. The next item is from the section titled Fauconburg's repulse where the next-to-last sentence reads: Like Margaret, he [Fauconburg] appeared to be dispirited by the news of Tewksbury and the Prince's death, and later rather tamely surrendered himself and his ships. Yet another person giving up! The last item is from the section titled The end of the Lancastrian Royal family. It starts off with Edward entering London on 21 May ...with the captive Queen Margaret beside him in a chariot, then goes on to state Henry died that night at the hands of Richard before backtracking and laying Henry's death on Edward. However, the last sentence of this section is The deposed King's death was announced in public that he had died of pure displeasure and melancholy,' but few believed this. (I didn't write that!) Now, here we have a 50 year-old man who's suffered for nearly two decades from some sort of ailment that definitely affected him mentally and p;ossibly physically; who has spent almost all of the past 5-6 years in captivity (certainly closely guarded) and during the year before his second capture was wandering around the countryside a wanted fugitive. The point I'm trying to make though, is that to flatly state that Henry was killed on Edward's orders isn't history  rather it's a fetishization of near contemporary sources. We have Prince Edward's mother giving up after his death; we have the most talented Lancastrian commander doing the same. Why would it be so unusual to expect the same sort of response from his father? A man who's been described as being both physically and mentally in a weakened state? Now, if I can find these sort of things with around 10 minutes searching/reading, it's certainly not too much to expect someone such as Penn, whose Winter King showed him capable of accurate and in-depth research, to come up with something other than a regurgitation of what everyone knows! Or is it? Doug (apologies for the length)   Paul wrote: I'm quite disappointed as the book is printed on decent paper so won't yellow fast, and smells nice. Then I read the introduction, and while Penn has a fluid literary style, it already shows where his book will be leading us, and it isn't to history. Most of the population weren't devastated by endless civil war, as he suggests, well for starters the WOTR were bursts of fighting every few years, there is no mention of the Yorks having the better claim to the throne than Lancaster, or that the red rose wasn't associated with Lancaster and the name WOTR given the period until Walter Scott, and putting régicide at the end of a long list of accusations against the brothers leaves me with no doubt as to who he is referring. I guess my Amazon review will not be pretty!    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-11 20:17:47
mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

Yes indeed Doug, the dungeon in a castle like Warwick (which I've seen) would have been much worse. Some prisoners were kept in the Tower for years, particularly foreign hostages. Different for suspected traitors who were nobodies. I doubt Forster suffered greatly. And BTW Penn again misquotes because he says Forster was starved by Richard; even Forster says his arrest and imprisonment was by 'servants of Richard'. I know it's a subtle difference but again it can be read that Richard was actually 'sitting there watching'.


Marie observes,

It's an odd reversal of the way historians treat Henry VI. His saintliness is so firmly believed that, even when nasty things are done to people in his name many years before he suffered his mental breakdown, even when his signature appears on letters of instruction for the distribution of the heads and quarters of executed traitors, people excuse him and say "oh well, he wasn't really with it. He must have been just told to sign and didn't read what it was about." We know that in his teens Henry kicked against control, that he loathed his uncle Gloucester, and that he had enough understanding to found Eton and King's. We know he was personally responsible for signing away Maine to please his new wife.

A couple of years back I looked into the Eleanor Cobham business, and found that Henry took a very personal interest in the case against Roger Bolingbroke and Eleanor Cobham. There was also a shocking case which happened the following year, which I first found mentioned in a continuation of the Brut:

"And in this same yere, the Monday next following, the woman of Kent that met with the King at the Blackheath in Kent, and spake to him boldly, and reviled him ungoodly and unwisely for Dame Eleanor Cobham, that he should have her home again to her husband the Duke of Gloucester. And with these words the King waxed wroth and took it to heart, and she was arrested and so brought to Westminster afore the justices of the King's Bench. And there she was reproved for her ungoodly language and foolhardiness to speak so to her liege lord the King. And she answered not, but asked the King's grace. . . . In brief she was condemned to be pressed to death, and the sentence was carried out.

Anyhow, I was so shocked at such a grisly death for such a misdemeanour I looked up the case in the King's Bench records, and below is a rough translation of it, and shows how a woman who was probably mentally unstable was killed in the slowest and most gruesome fashion simply for telling the King he was an idiot, and all because the way the charge was framed she could not plead guilty to what she had said without also pleading guilty to attempting to kill the king and cause revolution. I apologise to those with weak stomachs, but Henry could have pardoned her and clearly would not. I dread to think what historians like Penn would have said of Richard if anything like that had happened in his reign.


"On the Thursday next before the feast of Palm Sunday in the abovesaid year [1443] and at diverse times before that, at le Blakeheth in the foresaid county within the parish of Grenewich aforesaid and elsewhere in diverse hidden places in the same county, Juliana Ridligo late of Grenewich in the county of Kent, servant', and other anonymous false traitors of the Lord King, falsely and treasonably compassed plotting the death of the said king and treasonably confedered, conspired and maliciously proposed to kill him by stealth [subdole]. And And in order subtly to implement this nefarious proposal of theirs, then and there the foresaid Juliana, with the agreement of William Quyk late of Grenewich in the foresaid county, taillour', and other anonymous traitors, attached herself to the same king as he was riding along his highway, and in a spirit of malice said to him thus: Henry of Wyndesore, ride carefully! thy horse may stumble and break thy neck.' To whom the noble Sir John Beauchamp, then present, then and there said: Woman, to whom wouldst thou speak?' And she, answering in a loud voice, said to the same splendid youth in red riding upon a horse there, pointing out the said king with her hand, whilst shouting and saying to the same king thus: It would become thee better to ride to thine uncle than he to thee. Thou wilt kill him, just as thou hast killed thy mother. Send that uncle of thine back his wife whom thou detainest. Thou art stupid, and art known to be stupid by the whole realm of England.'

All and singular of which the foregoing Juliana, with the aforesaid agreement, then and there asserted so that the said king would be bereft of and totally lose his name and dignity in this foresaid realm and his people in the same would not adhere to him and not obey him and would withdraw their hearts' love from him; and that they would make such commotions of the foresaid people, murmurings and insurrections to the destruction of the said king and his foresaid realm in the same realm that the same king would within brief time be destroyed and killed from the foresaid causes.

The which indictment the Lord King afterwards caused to come before him to determine. And, because the foresaid Juliana was detained in the Lord King's prison of his Tower of London on the foresaid charge, under the ward of the constable of the same Tower, as it is said, the same constable and his lieuteant of the foresaid Tower were commanded to have the body of the foresaid Juliana before the Lord King at Westminster on the Monday next after a month from Easter to answer the Lord King of the premises, etc.

At which day the foresaid Juliana came in her proper person before the Lord King at Westminster in the custody of the foregoing constable, and was committed to the Marshal, etc. And immediately she said of the premises imputed to her above how she wished to be acquitted thereof, saying that she was guilty of none of the foresaid treasons and felonies; and where, recognising that she has said the foresaid words so horribly spoken, beseaaching the lord king's hand. Whereupon it was asked of the same Juliana how she wished to be acquitted of the foresaid treasons and felonies, [and] she said that she would not place herself upon any jury nor any creature but only upon the grace of the Lord King. Then, moreover, it was said to her by the court here that, unless she would answer otherwise in that behalf, she deserved to die by a death and peril to be declared in that behalf, and that she would be advised thereof by the Wednesday then next coming. And in the meantime the same Juliana was sent back to the foresaid Tower prison in the custody of the foregoing constable for safekeeping for peril that might fall.

At which day the foresaid Juliana before the Lord King at Westminster came in her proper person in the custody of the foregoing constable by pretext of the Lord King's writ addressed to her, and was committed to the Marshal, etc. And again it was asked of the said Juliana by the court here whether she would answer otherwise in that behalf, and she said no.

Therefore it was considered that the same Juliana should be led to the prison of the Lord king's Marshalsea before the same king [ie to the King's Bench Marshalsea] and there, naked except for her shift, should be placed lying straight on the ground upon her back, with a hole in the ground under her head and her head placed in the same, and anywhere upon her body there should be placed as much stone and iron as she may bear and more, and that as long as she lives she should have bread and water of the worst and nearest to that prison and on the day when she eats she does not drink, nor on the day when she drinks does not eat, living thus until she be dead, etc."

(TNA KB 27/728)




Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-12 03:17:42
Doug Stamate
That was just plain theft! More like a smash and grab with a touch of conspiracy to murder... Doug Paul wrote: Yes Doug, It's so disappointing showing up how sloppy his work on this book has been. I just looked at the illustrations and one of which shows the document signed by Richard and Buckingham the two men who « usurped » Edward V's throne. And usurped is also attached to Edward IV becoming king. Something which of course Henry VII didn't do! That was just plain theft!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Thomas Penn

2019-10-14 09:59:03
Hilary Jones
Actually Paul the book ends with Richard the Usurper being succeeded by another Usurper. But Richard was actually the worst because he was so unpopular (Horrox again) that he got himself killed. H
On Friday, 11 October 2019, 18:33:05 BST, bale.paul-trevor@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Doug, It's so disappointing showing up how sloppy his work on this book has been. I just looked at the illustrations and one of which shows the document signed by Richard and Buckingham the two men who « usurped » Edward V's throne. And usurped is also attached to Edward IV becoming king. Something which of course Henry VII didn't do! That was just plain theft!


Richard liveth yet! Le 11 oct. 2019 à 17:57 +0200, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <>, a écrit :

Paul, From all I've read here, I have to say my greatest disappointment is Penn's apparent abject failure to recognize that the received history of the period might not be exactly what happened. Your remark about regicide caused me to do a quick review of the aftermath of Tewksbury. I started with the Wikipedia article (I know, I know!) and immediately came across a couple of interesting items. To start of with, in the section titled Background Henry VI is described in the article at one point as ...the weak, intermittently insane Lancastrian King Henry VI. and in the section Edward's landing and the death of Warwick asThe unfortunate and by now feeble Henry VI.... Now, we know that Henry suffered from something, the question being what. We also know that in 1471 he would have been 50 years old and admittedly the previous few years likely hadn't been easy on him, physically or mentally. The important point, though, is that, at least according to the contributor/s, Henry at this point wasn't strong either mentally or physically. Then I found this in the section titled Aftermath of the battle. The last sentence reads A few days later Queen Margaret sent word to Edward from her refuge that she was at his commandment with Rowse's Bosworth Field & the Wars of the Roses being given as the source. IOW, with the death of her son after the battle she'd given up  completely. The next item is from the section titled Fauconburg's repulse where the next-to-last sentence reads: Like Margaret, he [Fauconburg] appeared to be dispirited by the news of Tewksbury and the Prince's death, and later rather tamely surrendered himself and his ships. Yet another person giving up! The last item is from the section titled The end of the Lancastrian Royal family. It starts off with Edward entering London on 21 May ...with the captive Queen Margaret beside him in a chariot, then goes on to state Henry died that night at the hands of Richard before backtracking and laying Henry's death on Edward. However, the last sentence of this section is The deposed King's death was announced in public that he had died of pure displeasure and melancholy,' but few believed this. (I didn't write that!) Now, here we have a 50 year-old man who's suffered for nearly two decades from some sort of ailment that definitely affected him mentally and p;ossibly physically; who has spent almost all of the past 5-6 years in captivity (certainly closely guarded) and during the year before his second capture was wandering around the countryside a wanted fugitive. The point I'm trying to make though, is that to flatly state that Henry was killed on Edward's orders isn't history  rather it's a fetishization of near contemporary sources. We have Prince Edward's mother giving up after his death; we have the most talented Lancastrian commander doing the same. Why would it be so unusual to expect the same sort of response from his father? A man who's been described as being both physically and mentally in a weakened state? Now, if I can find these sort of things with around 10 minutes searching/reading, it's certainly not too much to expect someone such as Penn, whose Winter King showed him capable of accurate and in-depth research, to come up with something other than a regurgitation of what everyone knows! Or is it? Doug (apologies for the length) Paul wrote: I'm quite disappointed as the book is printed on decent paper so won't yellow fast, and smells nice. Then I read the introduction, and while Penn has a fluid literary style, it already shows where his book will be leading us, and it isn't to history. Most of the population weren't devastated by endless civil war, as he suggests, well for starters the WOTR were bursts of fighting every few years, there is no mention of the Yorks having the better claim to the throne than Lancaster, or that the red rose wasn't associated with Lancaster and the name WOTR given the period until Walter Scott, and putting régicide at the end of a long list of accusations against the brothers leaves me with no doubt as to who he is referring. I guess my Amazon review will not be pretty!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.