Death of Hastings

Hi everyone, I'm Alan and am new to the group, so if I seem to ask some well-hackneyed questions at first please forgive me.

I've just read Tey's Daughter of Time, in which there's a passage (Chapter 10) I find a tad confusing. It's regarding the execution of Hastings. Extract follows:

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

"~~~~He went to interrupt a meeting of the conspirators, and arrested Lord Hastings, Lord Stanley, and one John Morton, Bishop of Ely.'

I thought we would arrive at John Morton sooner or later!'

A proclamation was issued, giving details of the plot to murder Richard, but apparently no copy now exists. Only one of the conspirators was beheaded, and that one, oddly enough, seems to have been an old friend of both Edward and Richard. Lord Hastings.'

Yes, according to the sainted More he was rushed down to the courtyard and beheaded on the nearest log.'

Rushed nothing,' said Carradine disgustedly. He was beheaded a week later. There's a contemporary letter about it that gives the date. Moreover, Richard couldn't have done it out of sheer vindictiveness, because he granted Hastings' forfeited estates to his widow, and restored the children's right of succession to them  which they had automatically lost.' ~~~~~~~"

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

My question:
Is the contemporary letter real, and if so does it still exist? Who is correct? the sainted More, or Carradine?

This might help you until someone more knowledgable replies..I do hope the link works I'm not too good at these things..
The execution of Lord Hastings | Richard III Society  American Branch The execution of Lord Hastings | Richard III Society... The Crimes' of Richard III: The execution of Lord HastingsThis crime' is one of those to which a great deal of attention has been given, an excessive amount ... View on www.r3.org Preview by Yahoo

Also recommended to read Alan Royal Blood by Bertram fields, Betrayal of Richard lll V B Lamb.

Hi, Alan. I love Kendall's biography despite an occasional tendency to fictionalize (notably, Cecily and her small sons at the foot of the Market Cross at Ludlow). No recent biographer seems to have quite the same understanding of or sympathy with Richard. The decision to put the "Prices in the Tower" in an appendix was brilliant. For too many writers, it's all (or almost all) that matters.

I would recommend Annette Carson's books and articles, "Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England" and Richard III: The Maligned King. The Kindle edition of "Lord Protector: is available through Amazon for only $4.99 (don't know offhand what that comes to in British pounds.) "Maligned King" in paperback is $26.95, but you can get a used copy for a third that price. (Some optimistic soul is charging $540.85 for the hardback, but perhaps that's a misprint!) I don't suppose you need her "Small Guide to the Great Debate" ($4.61 on Kindle).

Meanwhile, you might enjoy her blog, especially "Why It Had to Be the Tower," about the death of Hastings:

http://www.annettecarson.co.uk /357052362

(Had to disable the URL because it looked as if I meant the article on a possibly aborted new edition of Mancini. I meant the next article down.)

Carol

Hi, Alan. I love Kendall's biography despite an occasional tendency to fictionalize (notably, Cecily and her small sons at the foot of the Market Cross at Ludlow). No recent biographer seems to have quite the same understanding of or sympathy with Richard. The decision to put the "Prices in the Tower" in an appendix was brilliant. For too many writers, it's all (or almost all) that matters.

I would recommend Annette Carson's books and articles, "Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England" and Richard III: The Maligned King. The Kindle edition of "Lord Protector: is available through Amazon for only $4.99 (don't know offhand what that comes to in British pounds.) "Maligned King" in paperback is $26.95, but you can get a used copy for a third that price. (Some optimistic soul is charging $540.85 for the hardback, but perhaps that's a misprint!) I don't suppose you need her "Small Guide to the Great Debate" ($4.61 on Kindle).

Meanwhile, you might enjoy her blog, especially "Why It Had to Be the Tower," about the death of Hastings:

http://www.annettecarson.co. uk/357052362

(Had to disable the URL because it looked as if I meant the article on a possibly aborted new edition of Mancini. I meant the next article down.)

Carol

Hi, Alan. I love Kendall's biography despite an occasional tendency to fictionalize (notably, Cecily and her small sons at the foot of the Market Cross at Ludlow). No recent biographer seems to have quite the same understanding of or sympathy with Richard. The decision to put the "Prices in the Tower" in an appendix was brilliant. For too many writers, it's all (or almost all) that matters.

I would recommend Annette Carson's books and articles, "Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector and High Constable of England" and Richard III: The Maligned King. The Kindle edition of "Lord Protector: is available through Amazon for only $4.99 (don't know offhand what that comes to in British pounds.) "Maligned King" in paperback is $26.95, but you can get a used copy for a third that price. (Some optimistic soul is charging $540.85 for the hardback, but perhaps that's a misprint!) I don't suppose you need her "Small Guide to the Great Debate" ($4.61 on Kindle).

Meanwhile, you might enjoy her blog, especially "Why It Had to Be the Tower," about the death of Hastings:

http://www.annettecarson.co.uk /357052362

(Had to disable the URL because it looked as if I meant the article on a possibly aborted new edition of Mancini. I meant the next article down.)

Carol

Alan wrote:

Sorry to hijack your post Alan - the archer is a red herring because, true or not, Edward took the throne by conquest, it was undeniably his.I just happened to pick up Baldwin's Richard III and he talks about my old friend Stillington (can't escape him). He, like me, thinks the Commines story is stretching it a bit but he says that a yearbook of 1488 says that Stillington drew up the petition inviting Richard to assume the kingship and that contemporaries believed he had been active on Richard's behalf. Infuriatingly he doesn't quote the reference for the yearbook. He also says on the previous page that Stillington spent only a week in the Tower of London after Clarence's execution, because he'd been associated with plotting Clarence's downfall. Again no reference. Do you know anything of the yearbook or the week Marie (or anyone)? H

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 23:25
Subject: Re: Re: Death of Hastings

  I agree entirely Carol. Which reminds me that I must re-read Holinshed again, it's years since I did so, That said, as I recall, I might just as well read Shakespeare.

I managed to kindle Good King Richard, and am in the throes of reading it, Very clear and precise writing and a pleasure to read.

Alan.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:11 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Alan wrote:

"On Mancini I agree with Annette. Any new translation etc etc of whomever, must not be allowed to be viewed, and/or written about, with bias of any kind, but treated with fair and balanced academic considerations."

Carol responds:

I certainly agree that it must be a neutral translation, but I understood the criticism to imply that any translation done under the auspices of the Richard III Society must necessarily carry a pro-Richard bias. I think that's an unfortunate misconception as the Society has many scholarly members, not all of them favorable toward Richard. Unfortunately, the people holding this misconception were themselves members of the Society!

We very much need a new translation of Mancini to correct the mistranslations in the Armstrong edition (beginning with the use of "usurpation" for Occupatione in his title) and to point out Mancini's own errors of fact, such as his assertion (mentioned by Annette) that Richard held no public office.

Maybe Marie can tell us more about the progress of her friend's translation and whether it will be published this unfortunate mischaracterization. I certainly hope so since so few of us can read the original Latin for ourselves and since Armstrong's translation is flawed in the opposite direction (his assumption that Richard was a usurping tyrant).

Carol

Alan I don't think the document in Rouen Cathedral actually says that Edward was illegitimate. It was an entry for July 1441 saying that the clergy were paid to pray for the safe return if Richard Duke of York who was on campaign at Pontoise apparently from 14 July 1441 to 21 August 1441. The television programme with Michael K Jones regarding his find seemed to give as fact that Edward would definitely have been conceived on 28 July 1441 and therefore Richard could not have been his father. Joanna Laynesmith who wrote a book about Cecily, disputed these claims and gave reasons why Richard could have been the father. I know Joanna because she was, probably still is,  a member of the Worcester Branch of the Society. She is a well known historian with many books and papers to her name. I believe that she lectures on medieval history at Oxford.

I don't think that she had any hard evidence in the same way that Michael K Jones only had the Rouen document which only gives the dates for Richard's time in Pontoise. I am not sure but I think a pregnancy can last over 40 weeks or can end prematurely. Joanna was making the point that Cecily's pregnancy could have lasted longer. . I think at the time someone else had wondered if Edward had been premature and  that was dismissed because I think that it was said that he was a big baby, not sure where any evidence for that came from. Then there was the lavish christening for Edmund the following year while apparently Edward's christening was a small affair at the castle. I think Joanna was making the point that you have to consider other options too and it wasn't cut and dried by finding that document. It is the same thing with all the interpretations of Richard's actions. Annette Carson has pointed out, through diligent research, that all of Richard's actions during 1483 were legal under the law of the time. However, other people say that what he did was illegal, he murdered his wife, was having an affair with his niece and so on. Joanna like most Ricardians didn't say it had definitely happened she was just speculating what could have happened and that the document didn't mean that Edward was definitely not Richard's son. 

Hi Alan, many apologies for not coming back to this earlier. You can acquire the throne two ways - by inheritance or conquest (and later by invitation). Bolingbroke acquired it by conquest, there's no question that in inheritance terms he was not the true king, though he might have become so had Richard II continued to have no children and died before he did. I think what confuses people about Edward is that his father had put forward the claim of the House of York and at a point of weakness Henry VI had made him heir. But Edward took the crown through battle, so none of that actually mattered - just as it didn't matter that the Conqueror was actually a bastard. Edward's legitimacy made for good rumour, though and as we know everyone likes a good rumour.  Hope this helps. H

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 10:53
Subject: Re: Re: Death of Hastings

  Re kingship by conquest:

I understand what you're saying Hilary, but if Edward was illegitimate he had simply usurped the throne with no claim to it. That surely puts him in the same category as the earlier Bolinbroke and the later Henry Tudor. However as Richard of York acknowledged the baby Edward as his own, and established legal paternity, that would indeed give Edward a legal right to the throne...or would it? The document in Rouen Cathedral 'says' that Edward was illegitimate. Other ambitious factions might have had other ideas on the law. :-) But I concede to your point.

Alan.

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Sorry to hijack your post Alan - the archer is a red herring because, true or not, Edward took the throne by conquest, it was undeniably his.I just happened to pick up Baldwin's Richard III and he talks about my old friend Stillington (can't escape him). He, like me, thinks the Commines story is stretching it a bit but he says that a yearbook of 1488 says that Stillington drew up the petition inviting Richard to assume the kingship and that contemporaries believed he had been active on Richard's behalf. Infuriatingly he doesn't quote the reference for the yearbook. He also says on the previous page that Stillington spent only a week in the Tower of London after Clarence's execution, because he'd been associated with plotting Clarence's downfall. Again no reference. Do you know anything of the yearbook or the week Marie (or anyone)? H

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 23:25
Subject: Re: Re: Death of Hastings

  I agree entirely Carol. Which reminds me that I must re-read Holinshed again, it's years since I did so, That said, as I recall, I might just as well read Shakespeare.

I managed to kindle Good King Richard, and am in the throes of reading it, Very clear and precise writing and a pleasure to read.

Alan.

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:11 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Alan wrote:

"On Mancini I agree with Annette. Any new translation etc etc of whomever, must not be allowed to be viewed, and/or written about, with bias of any kind, but treated with fair and balanced academic considerations."

Carol responds:

I certainly agree that it must be a neutral translation, but I understood the criticism to imply that any translation done under the auspices of the Richard III Society must necessarily carry a pro-Richard bias. I think that's an unfortunate misconception as the Society has many scholarly members, not all of them favorable toward Richard. Unfortunately, the people holding this misconception were themselves members of the Society!

We very much need a new translation of Mancini to correct the mistranslations in the Armstrong edition (beginning with the use of "usurpation" for Occupatione in his title) and to point out Mancini's own errors of fact, such as his assertion (mentioned by Annette) that Richard held no public office.

Maybe Marie can tell us more about the progress of her friend's translation and whether it will be published this unfortunate mischaracterization. I certainly hope so since so few of us can read the original Latin for ourselves and since Armstrong's translation is flawed in the opposite direction (his assumption that Richard was a usurping tyrant).

Carol

If I may also butt in here Sandra, I'm still trying to find out where "my source" (namely Jeremy Potter) got his information that EW was "widely believed" to have a role in Clarence' death. I can find no reference to it anywhere except in th R3 Soc article...
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/back-to-basics-for-newcomers/the-murder-of-george-of-clarence/
...which states that "None of the sources before More doubt that Edward IV was solely responsible for the death of Clarence, even if they were in some doubt as to why he was executed."

Note "solely responsible". It makes no mention of the queen's involvement.

Alan

OK Sandra. It's just that Jermey Potter served as Chaiman of the R3 Society from 1971-1989, and I'd have thought that he wouldn't have used guesswork in his book without admitting speculation.

If his quote "widely believed" had foundation he didn't leave any reference. At least not in my Kindle copy of "Good King Richard".

Which of course leaves me to wonder how much guesswork has gone into the book. And I'm only at Chapter 4.

Alan

OK Sandra. It's just that Jermey Potter served as Chaiman of the R3 Society from 1971-1989, and I'd have thought that he wouldn't have used guesswork in his book without admitting speculation.

If his quote "widely believed" had foundation he didn't leave any reference. At least not in my Kindle copy of "Good King Richard".

Which of course leaves me to wonder how much guesswork has gone into the book. And I'm only at Chapter 4.

Alan

Note "solely responsible". It makes no mention of the queen's involvement.

Eileen: These are sources from Hicks' False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence' :

1. Mancini - 'the queen then remembered the insults to her family and the calumnies with which she had been reproached namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the king. Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne unless DoC were removed and of this she easily persuaded the king".

2. Polydore Vergil - information partly derived from Edward IV's councillors "affirming in that manifestly, that he (Clarence) was cast away by the envy of the nobylytie'...(i.e. the woodvilles?)

3. Sir Thomas More: explanations of the dukes death 'were it by the Queene and the lords of her blood which highly maligned the kings kinred'.

Thus according to Hicks' two of three sources cast the queen in this role' i.e. persuading Edward to out Clarence.

Furthermore Hicks also says that 'Rivers and Dorset were involved at every stage, from Clarences arrest to his execution, which was true NEITHER of the Gloucester nor Hastings who were also influential with the King' and that her 'kin could dominate the council'.

Eileen

Alan:

Note "solely responsible". It makes no mention of the queen's involvement.

Eileen: These are sources from Hicks' False, Fleeting, Perjur'd Clarence' :

1.  Mancini - 'the queen then remembered the insults to her family and the calumnies with which she had been reproached namely that she was not the legitimate wife of the king.  Thus she concluded that her offspring would never come to the throne unless DoC were removed and of this she  easily persuaded the king".

2.  Polydore Vergil - information partly derived from Edward IV's councillors "affirming in that manifestly, that he (Clarence) was cast away by the envy of the nobylytie'...(i.e. the woodvilles?)

3.  Sir Thomas More: explanations of the dukes death 'were it by the Queene and the lords of her blood which highly maligned the kings kinred'.

Thus according to Hicks' two of three sources cast the queen in this role' i.e. persuading Edward to out Clarence.  

Furthermore Hicks also says that 'Rivers and Dorset were involved at every stage, from Clarences arrest to his execution, which was true NEITHER of the Gloucester nor Hastings who were also influential with the King' and that her 'kin could dominate the council'.  

Eileen

Hi, Alan & Everyone 

Pardon me for butting in, also. I did notice in another message somewhere (which I can't find right now), that Mancini reported that the Queen was thought to have been at least partly responsible (maybe not entirely responsible  since I don't have the message in front of me, I'm not sure of the exact quote) for Edward's decision to execute George. If Mancini was likely to have been reporting what we would call gossip, he might be the source for Jeremy Potter's quote.

I took a look at Good King Richard?, and I noted that there are no notes at all in the book. Potter does provide a bibliography for further reading, but not a terribly extensive one. And it includes fiction like The Daughter of Time. But he writes in his Foreword,

The author's debt to, and indeed dependence upon, those who have written about Richard III

from the king's time to his own will be apparent. His acknowledgment and gratitude take the

form of a bibliography, where there works are listed for reference and as a recommended guide

to further reading. The absence of more detailed references in footnotes is to be regretted, but

this is a work of historiography intended for the general reader. (pg. Xii)

The mention of Mancini in the other email I've alluded to sent me to pages 81-86 (Chapter 9  Foreign Observers) ,where Potter discusses Mancini. HE writes that Mancini was a monk and man of letters, sent to England probably to spy, and, unlike Commynes, a man of integrity and an honest reporter. But the value of his work was limited by lack of knowledge of England or the English language. He says he was in England for the three months from Edward's death to the coronation of Richard, at which time he was recalled to France. He wrote his report which was filed in the archives and lost for many years. Potter says he probably never saw Richard in the flesh (no description of Richard), and he probably didn't have a reliable inside source to report on Richard, unlike the situation with EIV and EV. His objectivity can be questioned because he reported that Richard was aiming for the kingship right from the moment he learned of EIV's death.

And at page 84 Potter writes, He places the responsibility for Clarence's death squarely on the queen, who believed that her offspring would never come to the throne while he was alive.

Perhaps because of the lack of footnotes, you have to read the whole book to put the pieces together for support of Potter's conclusions!

Hope this helps,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: alanth2521@... []
Sent: October 1, 2016 10:42 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

OK Sandra. It's just that Jermey Potter served as Chaiman of the R3 Society from 1971-1989, and I'd have thought that he wouldn't have used guesswork in his book without admitting speculation.

If his quote "widely believed" had foundation he didn't leave any reference. At least not in my Kindle copy of "Good King Richard".

Which of course leaves me to wonder how much guesswork has gone into the book. And I'm only at Chapter 4.

Alan

Alan I have toyed with that idea that Hastings' letter to Richard was a ploy to get him to come to London. Though my idea was that MB was doing the plotting in order to get HT on the throne. My theory was that if MB was plotting to put HT  on the throne, she would have to get rid of a few people first. I suppose the same thing could apply to EW.

Alan I have toyed with that idea that Hastings' letter to Richard was a ploy to get him to come to London. Though my idea was that MB was doing the plotting in order to get HT on the throne. My theory was that if MB was plotting to put HT  on the throne, she would have to get rid of a few people first. I suppose the same thing could apply to EW.

Another execution EW is connected with is that of the Earl of Desmond..for anyone who has not seen it here..hopefully..is a link to an article by Annette Crosby and John Ashdown-Hill..which reaches the conclusionthat yes, its perfectly credible that EW was involved in the execution of the said Earl...

Another execution EW is connected with is that of the Earl of Desmond..for anyone who has not seen it here..hopefully..is a link to an article by Annette Crosby and John Ashdown-Hill..which reaches the conclusionthat yes, its perfectly credible that EW was involved in the execution of the said Earl...

On Saturday, October 1, 2016, 21:13, alan thomas alanth2521@... [] <> wrote:

As we all know every principal character in this mystery is connected to the Woodvilles except R3 himself. Even Buckingham was married to Catherine Woodville, the sister of EW. But then for some reason Bucks allied himself not to the Woodvilles, but to the Tudors, Why? That move of course ultimately led to his downfall.

Sorry...just thinking out loud. :-) Back to Richard the Good, Chapter 5.

Alan.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:44 PM, alan thomas <alanth2521@...> wrote:
Interesting. That would be the Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Desmond. This from Wiki:

"Later accounts suggested that Edward IV's Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, was the prime mover, having taken offence at some tactless remarks of Desmond. The Queen could indeed be a formidable enemy: her husband's biographer [?] describes her as a woman who was "quick to take offence and reluctant to forgive" but there is no contemporary evidence of any quarrel between her and Desmond. One account [?] claims that the Queen was jealous of Desmond's influence over her husband."

I can well believe that last sentence.

Thanks Eileen

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:25 PM, cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail. com [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Another execution EW is connected with is that of the Earl of Desmond..for anyone who has not seen it here..hopefully..is a link to an article by Annette Crosby and John Ashdown-Hill..which reaches the conclusionthat yes, its perfectly credible that EW was involved in the execution of the said Earl...

Alan, 

On Saturday, October 1, 2016, 21:13, alan thomas alanth2521@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As we all know every principal character in this mystery is connected to the Woodvilles except R3 himself. Even Buckingham was married to Catherine Woodville, the sister of EW. But then for some reason Bucks allied himself not to the Woodvilles, but to the Tudors, Why? That move of course ultimately led to his downfall.

Sorry...just thinking out loud. :-) Back to Richard the Good, Chapter 5.

Alan.
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:44 PM, alan thomas <alanth2521@...> wrote:
Interesting. That would be the Thomas FitzGerald, 7th Earl of Desmond. This from Wiki:

"Later accounts suggested that Edward IV's Queen, Elizabeth Woodville, was the prime mover, having taken offence at some tactless remarks of Desmond. The Queen could indeed be a formidable enemy: her husband's biographer [?] describes her as a woman who was "quick to take offence and reluctant to forgive" but there is no contemporary evidence of any quarrel between her and Desmond. One account [?] claims that the Queen was jealous of Desmond's influence over her husband."

I can well believe that last sentence.

Thanks Eileen

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 7:25 PM, cherryripe.eileenb@googlemail. com [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Another execution EW is connected with is that of the Earl of Desmond..for anyone who has not seen it here..hopefully..is a link to an article by Annette Crosby and John Ashdown-Hill..which reaches the conclusionthat yes, its perfectly credible that EW was involved in the execution of the said Earl...

OK Sandra. It's just that Jermey Potter served as Chaiman of the R3 Society from 1971-1989, and I'd have thought that he wouldn't have used guesswork in his book without admitting speculation.

If his quote "widely believed" had foundation he didn't leave any reference. At least not in my Kindle copy of "Good King Richard".

Which of course leaves me to wonder how much guesswork has gone into the book. And I'm only at Chapter 4.

Alan

Hi Sandra,

Re: Philippa Mortimer:

Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster, mother of Philippa Mortimer was buried at Wigmore Abbey, now demolished. The manuscript concerning the Mortimers and the foundation of Wigmore Abbey is now housed at the University of Chicago. There may be something there that you're looking for. This is probably not new to you and you've probably already done so, but have you tried contacting the University?

Alan.

Watched Richard lll trial dvd last night..thanks for the recommendations..very interesting - very long.  The young Starkey was so obnoxious and insolent..found myself shouting at the screen - he thinks More's History is actual fact..quoting about the Richard asking the page for advice while he was sitting on the privy and the page recommends Tyrell who as we all know Richard would have already known. ( He was knighted after a battle Im not sure which one)   This wasnt picked up on but time was of the essence..the place of burial of the bones in the Tower was mentioned ..but not enough was made about how absurd this story is..Starkey got his knickers in a twist when asked about one of the murderers ..Deighton I think..was still wandering around and had not been arrested and put on trial for murdering two ex-princes.  Jeremy Potter was marvellous.. Enjoyed it very much..Eileen

Watched Richard lll trial dvd last night..thanks for the recommendations..very interesting - very long. The young Starkey was so obnoxious and insolent..found myself shouting at the screen - he thinks More's History is actual fact..quoting about the Richard asking the page for advice while he was sitting on the privy and the page recommends Tyrell who as we all know Richard would have already known. ( He was knighted after a battle Im not sure which one) This wasnt picked up on but time was of the essence..the place of burial of the bones in the Tower was mentioned ..but not enough was made about how absurd this story is..Starkey got his knickers in a twist when asked about one of the murderers ..Deighton I think..was still wandering around and had not been arrested and put on trial for murdering two ex-princes. Jeremy Potter was marvellous.. Enjoyed it very much..Eileen

Alan:

Watched Richard lll trial dvd last night..thanks for the recommendations..very interesting - very long.  The young Starkey was so obnoxious and insolent..found myself shouting at the screen - he thinks More's History is actual fact..quoting about the Richard asking the page for advice while he was sitting on the privy and the page recommends Tyrell who as we all know Richard would have already known. ( He was knighted after a battle Im not sure which one)   This wasnt picked up on but time was of the essence..the place of burial of the bones in the Tower was mentioned ..but not enough was made about how absurd this story is..Starkey got his knickers in a twist when asked about one of the murderers ..Deighton I think..was still wandering around and had not been arrested and put on trial for murdering two ex-princes.  Jeremy Potter was marvellous.. Enjoyed it very much..Eileen

Mary wrote:

There is actually a theory put forward by Horspool that Edward never intended his son to have a Protectorate. He devotes quite a bit of space to it and says that is why Edward abandoned the first will.  It's not an unreasonable theory - Edward junior was nearly of an age and had been trained all along for kingship. We assume he would be a puppet but who knows? He might have been fed up with Uncle Rivers and not got on with a mother he'd rarely seen.If that was indeed the case (no Protectorate) it would have worried very many (think of Edward III) and provided opportunities for others. In fact perhaps it was Edward Buckingham was hoping to curry favour with until things took a wrong turn at Northampton?You mention Ross - he is to date Richard's best detailed biographer but he was very anti and things have happened since. He also wrote a biography of Edward which is extremely good and he seems to have calmed down a bit by the time he wrote that. I would say both are pretty essential reading - even if you don't agree with some of his points. H From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016, 22:12
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death



  I actually got this from an online timeline I'm using.

"Mid-April, 1483

Richard received Hastings' letter at his home in Middleham Castle. He then wrote a series of letters: To Anthony Woodville, the Earl Rivers, expressing an interest to meet up with the King and enter London with him; to Hastings, Buckingham, and others warning them of dire consequences if the Woodvilles remained in possession of the King and his government; and, lastly, to the Queen, in which he promised to "come and offer submission, fealty, and all that was due from him to his lord and King, Edward V." (Croyland Chronicler)"

http://edwardv1483.com/index. php?p=1_8_a-1483-timeline

I assumed it was right until your post. Even Gairdner makes no mention of a letter. I tried to write to the author of the timeline to query it. Email address not available.

Just shows that you have to check everything. :-)

Al.




On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:55 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 
Carol earlier: "In any case, though, it was Richard's duty as Protector designate to come to London.".

Alan responded:

"Was he Protector designate? I understood that he was chosen by the council in London to become Protector."

Carol responds:

All the sources agree that he was appointed Protector in a (lost) codicil to Edward's will. Croyland is rather indirect (and highly opinionated) about it: "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." He could only mean that appointing Richard as Protector led to tragedy. Mancini, if I recall correctly, is much more direct about it. The hostile Tudor sources insist upon the point, thinking that it makes Richard all the more guilty. (Of course, as Annette explains in her book on Richard as Protector and Constable, none of them really understood what the role of Protector entailed--Protector of the Realm, ot the king.)

In any case, as the chief peer of the realm and the only one closely related to young Edward on his father's side, he would have been head of the council with or without a Protectorship--and would have needed to be in London to keep the Woodvilles, especially Dorset, who had already performed some questionable actions as "uterine brother" of Edward V, in line. Someone--whether Hastings, Buckingham, or one of the responsible members of the council mentioned by Croyland, must have told Richard what was going on. One thing is certain--it wasn't EW or any member of her family.

Alan wrote:

"I too can't find any reference to a letter from Hastings to Richard. Not in More, nor Croyland. Wonder where Kendall got it from?"

Carol responds:

Definitely Mancini, but Kendall only quotes two sentences: "The King has left all to your protection--goods, heir, realm. Secure the person of our sovereign Lord Edward the Fifth and get you to London."

Somehow, I can't imagine Hastings ordering Richard to do anything, and he would have understood that what Edward left to Richard's protection was the realm only--which is presumably why Richard intended to meet Rivers and, presumably, allow Rivers to continue escorting the king, in his company--until something happened that led Richard to arrest Rivers instead. Whatever it was, we can dismiss Mancini's dialogue as imaginary. He wasn't there, he didn't speak English, and any informant (Argentine?) is unlikely to have been privy to Richard's conversation with his nephew (much less memorized the dialogue and translated it into a language that Mancini understood).

Carol

There is actually a theory put forward by Horspool that Edward never intended his son to have a Protectorate. He devotes quite a bit of space to it and says that is why Edward abandoned the first will.  It's not an unreasonable theory - Edward junior was nearly of an age and had been trained all along for kingship. We assume he would be a puppet but who knows? He might have been fed up with Uncle Rivers and not got on with a mother he'd rarely seen.If that was indeed the case (no Protectorate) it would have worried very many (think of Edward III) and provided opportunities for others. In fact perhaps it was Edward Buckingham was hoping to curry favour with until things took a wrong turn at Northampton?You mention Ross - he is to date Richard's best detailed biographer but he was very anti and things have happened since. He also wrote a biography of Edward which is extremely good and he seems to have calmed down a bit by the time he wrote that. I would say both are pretty essential reading - even if you don't agree with some of his points. H From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016, 22:12
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death



  I actually got this from an online timeline I'm using.

"Mid-April, 1483

Richard received Hastings' letter at his home in Middleham Castle. He then wrote a series of letters: To Anthony Woodville, the Earl Rivers, expressing an interest to meet up with the King and enter London with him; to Hastings, Buckingham, and others warning them of dire consequences if the Woodvilles remained in possession of the King and his government; and, lastly, to the Queen, in which he promised to "come and offer submission, fealty, and all that was due from him to his lord and King, Edward V." (Croyland Chronicler)"

http://edwardv1483.com/index.p hp?p=1_8_a-1483-timeline

I assumed it was right until your post. Even Gairdner makes no mention of a letter. I tried to write to the author of the timeline to query it. Email address not available.

Just shows that you have to check everything. :-)

Al.




On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:55 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 
Carol earlier: "In any case, though, it was Richard's duty as Protector designate to come to London.".

Alan responded:

"Was he Protector designate? I understood that he was chosen by the council in London to become Protector."

Carol responds:

All the sources agree that he was appointed Protector in a (lost) codicil to Edward's will. Croyland is rather indirect (and highly opinionated) about it: "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." He could only mean that appointing Richard as Protector led to tragedy. Mancini, if I recall correctly, is much more direct about it. The hostile Tudor sources insist upon the point, thinking that it makes Richard all the more guilty. (Of course, as Annette explains in her book on Richard as Protector and Constable, none of them really understood what the role of Protector entailed--Protector of the Realm, ot the king.)

In any case, as the chief peer of the realm and the only one closely related to young Edward on his father's side, he would have been head of the council with or without a Protectorship--and would have needed to be in London to keep the Woodvilles, especially Dorset, who had already performed some questionable actions as "uterine brother" of Edward V, in line. Someone--whether Hastings, Buckingham, or one of the responsible members of the council mentioned by Croyland, must have told Richard what was going on. One thing is certain--it wasn't EW or any member of her family.

Alan wrote:

"I too can't find any reference to a letter from Hastings to Richard. Not in More, nor Croyland. Wonder where Kendall got it from?"

Carol responds:

Definitely Mancini, but Kendall only quotes two sentences: "The King has left all to your protection--goods, heir, realm. Secure the person of our sovereign Lord Edward the Fifth and get you to London."

Somehow, I can't imagine Hastings ordering Richard to do anything, and he would have understood that what Edward left to Richard's protection was the realm only--which is presumably why Richard intended to meet Rivers and, presumably, allow Rivers to continue escorting the king, in his company--until something happened that led Richard to arrest Rivers instead. Whatever it was, we can dismiss Mancini's dialogue as imaginary. He wasn't there, he didn't speak English, and any informant (Argentine?) is unlikely to have been privy to Richard's conversation with his nephew (much less memorized the dialogue and translated it into a language that Mancini understood).

Carol

There is actually a theory put forward by Horspool that Edward never intended his son to have a Protectorate. He devotes quite a bit of space to it and says that is why Edward abandoned the first will.  It's not an unreasonable theory - Edward junior was nearly of an age and had been trained all along for kingship. We assume he would be a puppet but who knows? He might have been fed up with Uncle Rivers and not got on with a mother he'd rarely seen.If that was indeed the case (no Protectorate) it would have worried very many (think of Edward III) and provided opportunities for others. In fact perhaps it was Edward Buckingham was hoping to curry favour with until things took a wrong turn at Northampton?You mention Ross - he is to date Richard's best detailed biographer but he was very anti and things have happened since. He also wrote a biography of Edward which is extremely good and he seems to have calmed down a bit by the time he wrote that. I would say both are pretty essential reading - even if you don't agree with some of his points. H From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Sunday, 2 October 2016, 22:12
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death



  I actually got this from an online timeline I'm using.

"Mid-April, 1483

Richard received Hastings' letter at his home in Middleham Castle. He then wrote a series of letters: To Anthony Woodville, the Earl Rivers, expressing an interest to meet up with the King and enter London with him; to Hastings, Buckingham, and others warning them of dire consequences if the Woodvilles remained in possession of the King and his government; and, lastly, to the Queen, in which he promised to "come and offer submission, fealty, and all that was due from him to his lord and King, Edward V." (Croyland Chronicler)"

http://edwardv1483.com/index.p hp?p=1_8_a-1483-timeline

I assumed it was right until your post. Even Gairdner makes no mention of a letter. I tried to write to the author of the timeline to query it. Email address not available.

Just shows that you have to check everything. :-)

Al.




On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:55 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
 
Carol earlier: "In any case, though, it was Richard's duty as Protector designate to come to London.".

Alan responded:

"Was he Protector designate? I understood that he was chosen by the council in London to become Protector."

Carol responds:

All the sources agree that he was appointed Protector in a (lost) codicil to Edward's will. Croyland is rather indirect (and highly opinionated) about it: "On his death-bed he added some codicils thereto; but what a sad and unhappy result befell all these wise dispositions of his, the ensuing tragedy will more fully disclose." He could only mean that appointing Richard as Protector led to tragedy. Mancini, if I recall correctly, is much more direct about it. The hostile Tudor sources insist upon the point, thinking that it makes Richard all the more guilty. (Of course, as Annette explains in her book on Richard as Protector and Constable, none of them really understood what the role of Protector entailed--Protector of the Realm, ot the king.)

In any case, as the chief peer of the realm and the only one closely related to young Edward on his father's side, he would have been head of the council with or without a Protectorship--and would have needed to be in London to keep the Woodvilles, especially Dorset, who had already performed some questionable actions as "uterine brother" of Edward V, in line. Someone--whether Hastings, Buckingham, or one of the responsible members of the council mentioned by Croyland, must have told Richard what was going on. One thing is certain--it wasn't EW or any member of her family.

Alan wrote:

"I too can't find any reference to a letter from Hastings to Richard. Not in More, nor Croyland. Wonder where Kendall got it from?"

Carol responds:

Definitely Mancini, but Kendall only quotes two sentences: "The King has left all to your protection--goods, heir, realm. Secure the person of our sovereign Lord Edward the Fifth and get you to London."

Somehow, I can't imagine Hastings ordering Richard to do anything, and he would have understood that what Edward left to Richard's protection was the realm only--which is presumably why Richard intended to meet Rivers and, presumably, allow Rivers to continue escorting the king, in his company--until something happened that led Richard to arrest Rivers instead. Whatever it was, we can dismiss Mancini's dialogue as imaginary. He wasn't there, he didn't speak English, and any informant (Argentine?) is unlikely to have been privy to Richard's conversation with his nephew (much less memorized the dialogue and translated it into a language that Mancini understood).

Carol

One point Horspool makes (and I should emphasise that I'm not necessarily a Horspool fan) is that she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward. This is one of the root causes he invalidates Richard's kingship - it had not gone through due process. As I said in an earlier post, one would have thought she would have fought her case, not skulked off to sanctuary. H 

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 4:06
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

  Yes I think fear or trepidation would be better. A closing-in of events. I think Hitler would probably call it the "bunker syndrome". :-)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:56 AM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


Alan wrote:

"Yes Carol, I can agree with all that. But would she feel remorse and/or guilt about it? I think not. I see a hard relentless woman (albeit beautiful)), with perhaps a false and hypocritical piety, not given to remorse except for herself. The exception with regard to remorse and guilt would perhaps be that the whole episode of the struggle for the throne led to the death, if indeed that was their fate, of her two boys."

Carol responds:

I wasn't thinking of remorse, so maybe "guilty conscience" is the wrong term. More like consciousness of wrongdoing and fear of (just) punishment. And I think it was more than just her role in the death of Clarence that caused her fear of retaliation. Mancini says that she and Dorset tried (and failed) to raise troops against Richard after Stony Stratford and, failing that, she took to sanctuary and he fled. (I can't quote as I don't have the text.) But the question is, as always, whether we can trust him.

Carol

Firstly, we don't actually know it was Stillington's word. The Council/Parliament chose to rule on the Pre-Contract issue and what Horspool is saying (not me) is that all parties, including Elizabeth and her son (who of course wasn't born at the time of the 'offence') had a right to a hearing which never seems to have been requested or granted. Thus the legal procedure was void - I would emphasise this is Horspool demonstrating Richard's 'rashness', not me. I was pointing out that Elizabeth doesn't seem to have been a fighter - she got others to do it for her clandestinely. She would probably have commanded more respect if, like Catherine of Aragon in other circumstances, she'd put her case to Parliament/the Council. Hope this clarifies things.  H

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 10:32
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

  Hilary wrote: "...she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward."

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but if it's regarding the pre-contract, it would have to have gone through an ecclesiastic court, not Parliament, and this would more than likely be a waste of time. Even on his sole word, the court would have sided with Stillington. Doubtful the boy Edward could have helped in the matter. Wasn't he living away from London at the supposed time of the offence?  

Alan



On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  One point Horspool makes (and I should emphasise that I'm not necessarily a Horspool fan) is that she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward. This is one of the root causes he invalidates Richard's kingship - it had not gone through due process. As I said in an earlier post, one would have thought she would have fought her case, not skulked off to sanctuary. H 

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 4:06
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

  Yes I think fear or trepidation would be better. A closing-in of events. I think Hitler would probably call it the "bunker syndrome". :-)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:56 AM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


Alan wrote:

"Yes Carol, I can agree with all that. But would she feel remorse and/or guilt about it? I think not. I see a hard relentless woman (albeit beautiful)), with perhaps a false and hypocritical piety, not given to remorse except for herself. The exception with regard to remorse and guilt would perhaps be that the whole episode of the struggle for the throne led to the death, if indeed that was their fate, of her two boys."

Carol responds:

I wasn't thinking of remorse, so maybe "guilty conscience" is the wrong term. More like consciousness of wrongdoing and fear of (just) punishment. And I think it was more than just her role in the death of Clarence that caused her fear of retaliation. Mancini says that she and Dorset tried (and failed) to raise troops against Richard after Stony Stratford and, failing that, she took to sanctuary and he fled. (I can't quote as I don't have the text.) But the question is, as always, whether we can trust him.

Carol

Firstly, we don't actually know it was Stillington's word. The Council/Parliament chose to rule on the Pre-Contract issue and what Horspool is saying (not me) is that all parties, including Elizabeth and her son (who of course wasn't born at the time of the 'offence') had a right to a hearing which never seems to have been requested or granted. Thus the legal procedure was void - I would emphasise this is Horspool demonstrating Richard's 'rashness', not me. I was pointing out that Elizabeth doesn't seem to have been a fighter - she got others to do it for her clandestinely. She would probably have commanded more respect if, like Catherine of Aragon in other circumstances, she'd put her case to Parliament/the Council. Hope this clarifies things.  H

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@yahoog roups.com>
To: @yahoogr oups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 10:32
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

  Hilary wrote: "...she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward."

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but if it's regarding the pre-contract, it would have to have gone through an ecclesiastic court, not Parliament, and this would more than likely be a waste of time. Even on his sole word, the court would have sided with Stillington. Doubtful the boy Edward could have helped in the matter. Wasn't he living away from London at the supposed time of the offence?  

Alan



On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:
  One point Horspool makes (and I should emphasise that I'm not necessarily a Horspool fan) is that she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward. This is one of the root causes he invalidates Richard's kingship - it had not gone through due process. As I said in an earlier post, one would have thought she would have fought her case, not skulked off to sanctuary. H 

From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2016, 4:06
Subject: Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

  Yes I think fear or trepidation would be better. A closing-in of events. I think Hitler would probably call it the "bunker syndrome". :-)

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 3:56 AM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


Alan wrote:

"Yes Carol, I can agree with all that. But would she feel remorse and/or guilt about it? I think not. I see a hard relentless woman (albeit beautiful)), with perhaps a false and hypocritical piety, not given to remorse except for herself. The exception with regard to remorse and guilt would perhaps be that the whole episode of the struggle for the throne led to the death, if indeed that was their fate, of her two boys."

Carol responds:

I wasn't thinking of remorse, so maybe "guilty conscience" is the wrong term. More like consciousness of wrongdoing and fear of (just) punishment. And I think it was more than just her role in the death of Clarence that caused her fear of retaliation. Mancini says that she and Dorset tried (and failed) to raise troops against Richard after Stony Stratford and, failing that, she took to sanctuary and he fled. (I can't quote as I don't have the text.) But the question is, as always, whether we can trust him.

Carol

Carol wrote:

"I certainly agree that it must be a neutral translation, but I understood the criticism to imply that any translation done under the auspices of the Richard III Society must necessarily carry a pro-Richard bias. I think that's an unfortunate misconception as the Society has many scholarly members, not all of them favorable toward Richard. Unfortunately, the people holding this misconception were themselves members of the Society!

We very much need a new translation of Mancini to correct the mistranslations in the Armstrong edition (beginning with the use of "usurpation" for Occupatione in his title) and to point out Mancini's own errors of fact, such as his assertion (mentioned by Annette) that Richard held no public office.

Maybe Marie can tell us more about the progress of her friend's translation and whether it will be published this unfortunate mischaracterization. I certainly hope so since so few of us can read the original Latin for ourselves and since Armstrong's translation is flawed in the opposite direction (his assumption that Richard was a usurping tyrant)."

Marie replies:

Sorry for delay - have only just returned from holiday. I shan't get into to much detail here because there will be more detailed follow-up - not by me - in the next Bulletin. Just to say that the letter has been misinterpreted - probably partly our own fault for trying to keep it brief. Translating chronicles such as Crowland and Mancini is not a cut-and-dried task because these were highly literate bods who wrote in stylistic Latin which abounded in inferences (euphemisms in some cases), ambiguities and even allusions to Latin literature which they expected their readers to pick up on and take the point. Add to that the fact that, grammatically speaking, the two languages work so very differently, and you have vast scope for differences in translation. The retranslation of Crowland which was published in the 1980s, for instance, has not proved to be definitive as many of us hoped at the time.

It is, sadly, not a simple case of correcting Armstrong's 'mistranslations'. Most of the words in contention are not really mistranslations at all but simply slightly harsh but bona fide translations. To take your own example: okay, if Mancini had meant to say 'usurpation' he could have written 'usurpatio', but 'occupatio' also tended to carry connotations of unlawful rule.

So, unless a translator was deliberately setting out to give the polar-opposite translation possibility from Armstrong in each case, a fresh translation might not look very different from the existing one, and might even be more unfavourable in places - that was what we were trying to say - absolutely not accusing anyone of having *asked* for a biased translation!

In considering research projects for the Society, there are just so many jostling for attention - many primary documents that have never been published at all and which might really tell us something new.

Re the translation currently underway, I have had no update since I forwarded the person concerned copies of Mancini's text last spring. If it ever does reach the Papers Library it will certainly not be labelled as Ricardian as Annette perfectly well knows, because this particular translator made it crystal clear that this is not their intent and has avoided even looking at Armstrong's rendition so as not to influenced by it either way. The letter did not refer to this translation for the very reason that had been no further communication. Whether it will reach the library, or even be able to form the basis of a publication project at some future point, is a complete unknown so it is a huge pity that this has got dragged into the controversy.

By offering to take accept an anti-Armstrong translation for the Papers Library, should anyone wish to make one, we were simply seeking to be as inclusive as possible. I personally believe one can never have too many different translations of a document as I have so many times seen people making interpretations based on a perfectly valid translation that don't actually work in the original language - having multiple translations available for people unable to follow the original text at all is therefore really valuable in my view (for instance, we now have more than one translation available of both De Valera and Rous).

There, I've said a lot more than I meant to. But given the circumstances it's difficult to be that brief.

Alan wrote:

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but if it's regarding the pre-contract, it would have to have gone through an ecclesiastic court, not Parliament

Marie:

This is not actually so. If you go back to a thread that was running a month or to ago you'll see discussion on this. Crowland complains about the fact that no ecclesiastical court had adjudicated on the marriage, but Crowland is an ecclesiastical source. Actually bastardy for the purposes of inheritance was governed by English common law, not by canon law, and the two types of law frequently took divergent views, a fact which many churchmen found abhorrent. So, Crowland notwithstanding, parliament was within its rights to declare Edward V a bastard for the purposes of the succession having satisfied themselves of evidence that would have rendered his parents' marriage definitively invalid in canon law. I'm sure this must have been discussed and okayed by the justices, whose job it was to convene to thrash out novel or difficult legal problems.

Looking ahead to other posts, I don't think that Horspool is right either in saying that all interested parties needed to be given a formal hearing in parliament - he may again be following Crowland. Neither Elizabeth Woodville nor Edward V could have contributed anything useful to the debate since the validity of Elizabeth's marriage did not hinge on anything that either she or her child could have influenced. For all we know she may have put representations to the royal council or to parliament - the records simply aren't there. The council records are lost and parliamentary records of this era don't include any record of the discussion of Bills, only notes on the opening and closing, choosing of a Speaker and the text of the Acts passed. Besides, the decision to stay in Sanctuary had been Elizabeth's - she had made herself unavailable for court appearances.

It is, of course, a highly unusual case and it would be better if we knew more about how it was handled.

Alan wrote:

I'm not sure which case you're referring to, but if it's regarding the pre-contract, it would have to have gone through an ecclesiastic court, not Parliament

Marie:

This is not actually  so. If you go back to a thread that was running a month or to ago you'll see discussion on this. Crowland complains about the fact that no ecclesiastical court had adjudicated on the marriage, but Crowland is an ecclesiastical source. Actually bastardy for the purposes of inheritance was governed by English common law, not by canon law, and the two types of law frequently took divergent views, a fact which many churchmen found abhorrent. So, Crowland notwithstanding, parliament was within its rights to declare Edward V a bastard for the purposes of the succession having satisfied themselves of evidence that would have rendered his parents' marriage definitively invalid in canon law. I'm sure this must have been discussed and okayed by the justices, whose job it was to convene to thrash out novel or difficult legal problems.

Looking ahead to other posts, I don't think that Horspool is right either in saying that all interested parties needed to be given a formal hearing in parliament - he may again be following Crowland. Neither Elizabeth Woodville nor Edward V could have contributed anything useful to the debate since the validity of Elizabeth's marriage did not hinge on anything that either she or her child could have influenced. For all we know she may have put representations to the royal council or to parliament - the records simply aren't there. The council records are lost and parliamentary records of this era don't include any record of the discussion of Bills, only notes on the opening and closing, choosing of a Speaker and the text of the Acts passed. Besides, the decision to stay in Sanctuary had been Elizabeth's - she had made herself unavailable for court appearances.

It is, of course, a highly unusual case and it would be better if we knew more about how it was handled.

Hi, Doug & Everyone 

I've been trying to follow this discussion with interest, but it is difficult to catch all the emails because of the way the Windows 10 Mail program organizes emails. However, from what I've read, I take it that the archival records appear to be incomplete and much that might have related to Richard's claim is missing. Perhaps these things didn't exist. But most people here seem to feel that Parliament would not likely have endorsed Richard's claim unless it was satisfied as to the sufficiency of it.

Now, if documents were subsequently removed from the record, isn't it possible that whatever argument EW and/or EV and their supporters put forward was also removed? And on the other hand, if they did not put forward their claim, isn't it likely that that was because they knew they really didn't have a good claim?

Just sayin'.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: October 4, 2016 8:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: EW and Clarence's Death

Hilary wrote: One point Horspool makes (and I should emphasise that I'm not necessarily a Horspool fan) is that she was never given her opportunity to put her case to Parliament and neither was young Edward. This is one of the root causes he invalidates Richard's kingship - it had not gone through due process. As I said in an earlier post, one would have thought she would have fought her case, not skulked off to sanctuary. Doug here: A lack of due process? Oh my. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Johanne wrote:

Now, if documents were subsequently removed from the record, isn't it possible that whatever argument EW and/or EV and their supporters put forward was also removed? And on the other hand, if they did not put forward their claim, isn't it likely that that was because they knew they really didn't have a good claim?

Marie:

It's possible, but EW had shot herself in the foot by marrying Edward clandestinely. This robbed her of any rights in the event of an impediment later coming to light, and the adultery would have made it impossible for Edward to have married her legally after Eleanor's death . As regards the precontract, therefore, the only question was whether or not it had happened, and EW is unlikely to have had anything to contribute to that debate.

Where she may have been able to defend her marriage is in relation to the suspicion expressed in TR that it had been effected by witchcraft (thus invalidating Edward's consent). It is clear from the wording of TR that parliament was reserving the right to investigate this at a later date - presumably this charge had remained unresolved because of Elizabeth's refusal to make herself available for questioning. This actually implies that Elizabeth's rights to a hearing, such as they were, had been respected.

All in all it seems unlikely that Elizabeth could have put forward any argument other than the fact that her marriage had been recognised for so long, and all the lords had sworn oaths of fealty to her son.

Marie,

I've left your post below complete as I just wanted to thank you for it and for helping make clear some points about translations/translating I, and likely others as well, was having.

Doug

Marie replies:

Sorry for delay - have only just returned from holiday. I shan't get into to much detail here because there will be more detailed follow-up - not by me - in the next Bulletin. Just to say that the letter has been misinterpreted - probably partly our own fault for trying to keep it brief. Translating chronicles such as Crowland and Mancini is not a cut-and-dried task because these were highly literate bods who wrote in stylistic Latin which abounded in inferences (euphemisms in some cases), ambiguities and even allusions to Latin literature which they expected their readers to pick up on and take the point. Add to that the fact that, grammatically speaking, the two languages work so very differently, and you have vast scope for differences i n translation. The retranslation of Crowland which wa s published in the 1980s, for instance, has not proved to be definitive as many of us hoped at the time.

It is, sadly, not a simple case of correcting Armstrong's 'mistranslations'. Most of the words in contention are not really mistranslations at all but simply slightly harsh but bona fide translations. To take your own example: okay, if Mancini had meant to say 'usurpation' he could have written 'usurpatio', but 'occupatio' also tended to carry connotations of unlawful rule.

So, unless a translator was deliberately setting out to give the polar-opposite translation possibility from Armstrong in each case, a fresh translation might not look very different from the existing one, and might even be more unfavourable in places - that was what we were trying to say - absolutely not accusing anyone of having *asked* for a biased translation!

In considering research projects for the Society, there a re just so many jostling for attention - many primary documents that have never been published at all and which might really tell us something new.

Re the translation currently underway, I have had no update since I forwarded the person concerned copies of Mancini's text last spring. If it ever does reach the Papers Library it will certainly not be labelled as Ricardian as Annette perfectly well knows, because this particular translator made it crystal clear that this is not their intent and has avoided even looking at Armstrong's rendition so as not to influenced by it either way. The letter did not refer to this translation for the very reason that had been no further communication. Whether it will reach the library, or even be able to form the basis of a publication project at some future point, is a complete unknown so it is a huge pity that this has got dragged i nto the controversy.

By offering to take accept an anti-Armstrong translation for the Papers Library, should anyone wish to make one, we were simply seeking to be as inclusive as possible. I personally believe one can never have too many different translations of a document as I have so many times seen people making interpretations based on a perfectly valid translation that don't actually work in the original language - having multiple translations available for people unable to follow the original text at all is therefore really valuable in my view (for instance, we now have more than one translation available of both De Valera and Rous).

There, I've said a lot more than I meant to. But given the circumstances it's difficult to be that brief.

Johanne wrote:

Now, if documents were subsequently removed from the record, isn't it possible that whatever argument EW and/or EV and their supporters put forward was also removed? And on the other hand, if they did not put forward their claim, isn't it likely that that was because they knew they really didn't have a good claim?

Marie:

It's possible, but EW had shot herself in the foot by marrying Edward clandestinely. This robbed her of any rights in the event of an impediment later coming to light, and the adultery would have made it impossible for Edward to have married her legally after Eleanor's death . As regards the precontract, therefore, the only question was whether or not it had happened, and EW is unlikely to have had anything to contribute to that debate.

Where she may have been able to defend her marriage is in relation to the suspicion expressed in TR that it had been effected by witchcraft (thus invalidating Edward's consent). It is clear from the wording of TR that parliament was reserving the right to investigate this at a later date - presumably this charge had remained unresolved because of Elizabeth's refusal to make herself available for questioning. This actually implies that Elizabeth's rights to a hearing, such as they were, had been respected.

All in all it seems unlikely that Elizabeth could have put forward any argument other than the fact that her marriage had been recognised for so long, and all the lords had sworn oaths of fealty to her son.

Alan Q: My knowledge of the procedures of mediaeval courts, especially as regards to royalty is extremely limited , but I suspect they were different from today, but would a queen (i.e. a consort) belittle herself to appear at a court in person, or would her appeals, evidence, whatever, be given by a representative?

Marie A: It's a very question. If Elizabeth had come out of sanctuary during the protectorate, she could have done so with guarantee of safety from the council - this is recorded. Who knows how differently things might have turned out then. I don't think it can be assumed that any of the later events would necessarily have occurred if she had changed tack and agreed to cooperate with the Protector and Council. But she didn't, and Stallworthe's letter of 9 June suggests that the council's attempts to negotiate with her may have been abandoned - at least, there was a council meeting that day at Westminster but 'none spoke with the Queen'. If Richard's claims in his letter to York of the following day were genuine, he now believed she was plotting against his life. We don't know quite when the precontract came to light, but by 2nd half of June the Woodville position had come to represent dangerous instability, and making use of the precontract to set Edward V aside was probably regarded by Richard and many others with a stake in society as the only remaining option. Of course, Elizabeth was still Queen Dowager as the decision on the succession approached, and no I don't think she would have been tried in parliament at that time (a valid parliament, in any case, could only sit under a recognised king), but she could have been questioned privately. It's true that, when applying for their marriage dispensation from the legate, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor were represented at the tribunal by proxies, so in 1483 Elizabeth Woodville might have been able to put forward people who had been members of the Grafton household in 1464 - former attendants of hers, perhaps - who could have vouched for there having been no witchcraft practised in the house. Presumably she didn't do so, or her representatives failed to give satisfactory answers, since this question remained open. Perhaps communication with her had irrevocably broken down.

Once TR was enacted, of course, it was 1484 and Elizabeth was no longer queen, just Dame Elizabeth Grey, so if she had come out of sanctuary she might not have been given such an easy ride by any commission looking into the witchcraft allegations. This may well be the reason why we are told she sent her daughters into Richard's care, but there is no record of her having come out of sanctuary herself. Whether the inclusion of the witchcraft allegations was Richard's idea or that of the MPs is not clear - TR was a members' Bill, not a royal Bill.

Alan Q. A reference was made in the "Trial" (can't remember by who) that women in mediaeval times were viewed in a similar manner to children in Victoriana, i.e.. "seen but not heard". Yet 'au contraire' from what I read in numerous online articles which say that thanks somewhat to the advent of the printing press 15th century women were remarkably liberated, and were given freedoms in many fields of life and activity. Would this apply to legal matters?

Marie A: It very much depended on a woman's situation. Married women had little independence under the law because they were deemed to be 'covered' by their husbands, and unmarried women were expected to remain in the parental home or enter a convent. Single women living independently, in the towns at least, were under constant suspicion of being prostitutes. But queens had more independence than other wives. They had their own swathe of properties, even their own palaces, and maintained a separate household with all the usual officers; queens also had a role in seeing petitioners and speaking to the king on their behalf. Widows were also independent, and some landed widows, upon remarriage, managed to arrange deals with the new husband that enabled them to retain that financial independence - Margaret Beaufort is a good example. So as queen and widow, Elizabeth Woodville would have been able to represent herself independently in 1483, but being the new king's mother did not give her a right to any role in the government, which is not surprising given that queens were not of the ruling family by blood and were usually foreign born.

Alan Q: Again from the "Trial", the 'witness' Pollard stated that Stillington's account of the pre-contract was apparently reported by Commines and was confirmed by "record sources in 1485", but failed to say what 1485 sources. ????

Marie A: He is probably referring to the entry in the legal Year Book for the first year of Henry VII's reign that records the discussion between Henry and the Justices over the possibility of repealing Titulus Regius without having it read out in parliament. This entry refers to Stillington as the person who 'made the Bill'.

Alan Q: Today we are all used to almost instantaneous news reporting as events happen. Not so in the Middle ages. What would be the time difference between an event happening and it being chronicled by, for example, Croyland, and yet a further time lapse between being chronicled and read by interested parties? There would then surely be another time delay before the general populace, many illiterate, would be told the news.

Marie A: Depends on who wrote the Crowland account. There have been many, many articles written on the subject. At least some of it may be the memoir of a man working at Westminster in some government capacity, but there again may not, and we don't know when the various bits were committed to writing, only that it was completed in April 1486. Proclamations would be issued to inform the populus of important changes such as new monarch, new legislation, etc, but obviously they would take at least a week, probably more, to get round the country.

Alan Q: Following on from (d) who would report to the chroniclers in the first place, and how would what they're told, be verified? Would they have what we refer today as a "political editor"?

Marie A: That's a very difficult question. Every chronicle is different, and in many cases we know little about authorship. They would pretty much always be written with a view to general political correctness, and in many cases also to please a particular patron. One of the reasons I am so wary of chronicles and "histories" as sources is that they are, when all is said and done, just hearsay evidence, and we can only know whether or not to credit any particular statement if we can find more solid documentary evidence to check it against. We can't get away from these sources entirely but IMO they should be used with extreme caution and shouldn't be given too much weight.

Alan Q: My knowledge of the procedures of mediaeval courts, especially as regards to royalty is extremely limited , but I suspect they were different from today, but would a queen (i.e. a consort) belittle herself to appear at a court in person, or would her appeals, evidence, whatever, be given by a representative? 

Marie A: It's a very question. If Elizabeth had come out of sanctuary during the protectorate, she could have done so with guarantee of safety from the council - this is recorded. Who knows how differently things might have turned out then. I don't think it can be assumed that any of the later events would necessarily have occurred if she had changed tack and agreed to cooperate with the Protector and Council. But she didn't, and Stallworthe's letter of 9 June suggests that the council's attempts to negotiate with her may have been abandoned - at least, there was a council meeting that day at Westminster but 'none spoke with the Queen'.  If Richard's claims in his letter to York of the following day were genuine, he now believed she was plotting against his life. We don't know quite when the precontract came to light, but by 2nd half of June the Woodville position had come to represent dangerous instability, and making use of the precontract to set Edward V aside was probably regarded by Richard and many others with a stake in society as the only remaining option. Of course, Elizabeth was still Queen Dowager as the decision on the succession approached, and no I don't think she would have been tried in parliament at that time (a valid parliament, in any case, could only sit under a recognised king), but she could have been questioned privately. It's true that, when applying for their marriage dispensation from the legate, Elizabeth of York and Henry Tudor were represented at the tribunal by proxies, so in 1483 Elizabeth Woodville might have been able to put forward people who had been members of the Grafton household in 1464 - former attendants of hers, perhaps - who could have vouched for there having been no witchcraft practised in the house. Presumably she didn't do so, or her representatives failed to give satisfactory answers, since this question remained open. Perhaps communication with her had irrevocably broken down. 

Once TR was enacted, of course, it was 1484 and  Elizabeth was no longer queen, just Dame Elizabeth Grey, so if she had come out of sanctuary she might not have been given such an easy ride by any commission looking into the witchcraft allegations. This may well be the reason why we are told she sent her daughters into Richard's care, but there is no record of her having come out of sanctuary herself. Whether the inclusion of the witchcraft allegations was Richard's idea or that of the MPs is not clear - TR was a members' Bill, not a royal Bill.

Alan Q. A reference was made in the "Trial" (can't remember by who) that women in mediaeval times were viewed in a similar manner to children in Victoriana, i.e.. "seen but not heard". Yet 'au contraire' from what I read in numerous online articles which say that thanks somewhat to the advent of the printing press 15th century women were remarkably liberated, and were given freedoms in many fields of life and activity. Would this apply to legal matters?

Marie A: It very much depended on a woman's situation. Married women had little independence under the law because they were deemed to be 'covered' by their husbands, and unmarried women were expected to remain in the parental home or enter a convent. Single women living independently, in the towns at least, were under constant suspicion of being prostitutes. But queens had more independence than other wives. They had their own swathe of  properties, even their own palaces, and maintained a separate household with all the usual officers; queens also had a role in seeing petitioners and speaking to the king on their behalf.  Widows were  also independent, and some landed widows, upon remarriage, managed to arrange deals with the new husband that enabled them to retain that financial independence - Margaret Beaufort is a good example. So as queen and widow, Elizabeth Woodville would have been able to represent herself independently in 1483, but being the new king's mother did not give her a right to any role in the government, which is not surprising given that queens were not of the ruling family by blood and were usually foreign born.

Alan Q: Again from the "Trial", the 'witness' Pollard stated that Stillington's account of the pre-contract was apparently reported by Commines and was confirmed by "record sources in 1485", but failed to say what 1485 sources. ????

Marie A: He is probably referring to the entry in the legal Year Book for the first year of Henry VII's reign that records the discussion between Henry and the Justices over the possibility of repealing Titulus Regius without having it read out in parliament. This entry refers to Stillington as the person who 'made the Bill'.

Alan Q: Today we are all used to almost instantaneous news reporting as events happen. Not so in the Middle ages. What would be the time difference between an event happening and it being chronicled by, for example, Croyland, and yet a further time lapse between being chronicled and read by interested parties?  There would then surely be another time delay before the general populace, many illiterate, would be told the news.

Marie A: Depends on who wrote the Crowland account. There have been many, many articles written on the subject. At least some of it may be the memoir of a man working at Westminster in some government capacity, but there again may not, and we don't know when the various bits were committed to writing, only that it was completed in April 1486. Proclamations would be issued to inform the populus of important changes such as new monarch, new legislation, etc, but obviously they would take at least a week, probably more, to get round the country.

Alan Q: Following on from (d) who would report to the chroniclers in the first place, and how would what they're told, be verified? Would they have what we refer today as a "political editor"?

Marie A: That's a very difficult question. Every chronicle is different, and in many cases we know little about authorship. They would pretty much always be written with a view to general political correctness, and in many cases also to please a particular patron. One of the reasons I am so wary of chronicles and "histories" as sources is that they are, when all is said and done, just hearsay evidence, and we can only know whether or not  to credit any particular statement if we can find more solid documentary evidence to check it against. We can't get away from these sources entirely but IMO they should be used with extreme caution and shouldn't be given too much weight.

Hilary:

Hi Marie, hope you had a good holiday. I agree very much with your last point. Chronicles may indeed contain a grain of truth but a lot of it is in the presentation of that truth i.e. bias. Whilst you were away I asked a couple of things about what Baldwin says about Stillington. One thing is that he was only in the Tower for a week,

Marie - Do you know which of Baldwin's books this is from? I take it this is about 1478? The only evidence of which I'm aware is that:-

1) Parliament was dissolved on 26 February,

2) on 6 March Lady Stonor wrote home that 'ye shall understand that the Bishop of Bath is brought to the Tower since ye departed'. The proclamation of 20 June (see below) states that he had been denounced of having done or committed ('fecisse aut perpetratrasse') various things prejudicial to the King and his estate and against his oath of allegiance.

3) On 20 June King Edward issued a proclamation informing people that the Bishop had been examined before the King and several lords spiritual and temporal, and had shown proofs of his innocence. The purpose of the proclamation was to clear the Bishop's name with the public and restore the damage to his reputation.

The pardon was only effective from tjhat same day, so the proclamation of innocence was not an afterthought, and Stillington would not have been able to obtain his release without the pardon.

It is true that he was reappointed to the commission of the peace from Berkshire on 14 April, but this is not of much significance. Sometimes even dead men got re-appointed for year or two.

Hilary:

the other is that a 'yearbook of 1488 does say it was Stillington who drew up the petition inviting Richard to assume the kingship'. Sadly, he doesn't give any references for either. Do you know of the yearbook for 1488?

Marie:

This must be a mistake. This appears in the yearbook for 1485-6 (1 Henry VII).

Poohlandeva wrote:

"Can I just ask a question, a little off topic, but it is relevant as it speaks to Richard iii being anything but vindictive when it comes to EW?

I know this issue has been raised before here, but I'll raise it again t be executedo set the record straight.
Why, after appearing to support Richard, did Hastings turn against him, and why was he the only one of the key conspirators to be executed? Was it, for instance, because Richard supported or trusted Buckingham too much?