1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

They say numbers can't lie (except lies, d... lies and statistics) so here we go.

There were 164 attainted rebels who caused trouble in the following regions made up as follows:
Kent 45Salisbury 32Newbury 17Torrington 9Exeter 20Bodmin 4Dorset/Somerset 5Cornwall/Devon 3The rest 29
So far I've been able to trace (i.e. pin down to a family and links) 142 so I think we can say it's a fair sample.
Of these:
1. 55 had been planted in counties that were not their own. In Newbury in particular 13 out of 17 rebels came from elsewhere
2. 118 rebels were either related to one another or were servants of a rebel
3. 16 were, or were closely related to, attainted Lancastrians
4. 29 went into exile (including HT and Jasper) and some were servants
5. 40 fought at Bosworth (as far as we know)
6. 25 were closely related to EW or held office under her
7. 16 were associated or related to MB
So what does it tell us?
There are significant regional variations. Kent unsurprisingly was Woodville country but another 12 Woodville relatives or close servants had been distributed in other parts of the country or were already supporting HT. Of the Kent rebels 15 came from families who had participated in the Cade rebellion so 'rent a mob' ruled.
The further South West you go then again, unsurprisingly, the more influence was exerted by MB and Morton but at this stage not a lot. The West Country and Southampton need further exploration: the wool industry and 1470s history feature there. The North West, where there was significant Stafford (and Stanley) influence, doesn't feature at all.
This is just the bare bones of my work ( I have a sheet on each rebel which tells its own story) and now needs following through to 1485 but there is nothing I've found (apart from Woodville input) which is to do with:
a. the restoration of a boy king
b. discontent with any policy that Richard has introduced
It's about exploiting the grievances of the discontented to meet the ends of some individuals and that's important when we come to look at Richard's reputation and what rumour and some historians would have us believe. I reckon the world hasn't moved far on from that. H PS the fact that he only executed 10 rebels out of 164 hardly fits with the ruthless tyrant, but some of us have been saying that for years.

Very interesting post Hilary. In fact I've saved it. Indicative that MB et al were not concerned at all with retaking the throne for young Edward but striving to get a crown for her son and ultimately not bothered abut how many lives were lost in the process. And that is what angers me..Eileen

It's very difficult to know what deals were brokered - HT's return in exchange for supporting Woodvilles and young Edward? Certainly at least one rebel was a messenger between EW and MB.What really strikes me though is that this went down in history as 'Buckingham's rebellion' but where is his support? A necromancer and a couple of folks in Brecon. So much for the Tudor version of history which has been repeated ad infinitum. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 19:29
Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Very interesting post Hilary. In fact I've saved it. Indicative that MB et al were not concerned at all with retaking the throne for young Edward but striving to get a crown for her son and ultimately not bothered abut how many lives were lost in the process. And that is what angers me..Eileen

Bucks rebellion continues to be a mystery...frustratingly..eileen

Thanks for the numeric breakdown, Hilary. And with all that, only forty of those men fought for Henry at Bosworth? I'll bet that 29 of them were his original followers. And one, of course, was Oxford, arrested not by Richard but by Edward some ten years before. I know that Oxford had a legitimate grudge against the House of York, specifically Edward, but for Richard's sake, I wish Edward had executed him when he had both reason and opportunity.

Carol

Jan here.Thank you, Hilary, for your hard work & interesting results. Will you publish?
Sent from my iPad
On 27 Sep 2016, at 16:29, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

They say numbers can't lie (except lies, d... lies and statistics) so here we go.

There were 164 attainted rebels who caused trouble in the following regions made up as follows:
Kent 45Salisbury 32Newbury 17Torrington 9Exeter 20Bodmin 4Dorset/Somerset 5Cornwall/Devon 3The rest 29
So far I've been able to trace (i.e. pin down to a family and links) 142 so I think we can say it's a fair sample.
Of these:
1. 55 had been planted in counties that were not their own. In Newbury in particular 13 out of 17 rebels came from elsewhere
2. 118 rebels were either related to one another or were servants of a rebel
3. 16 were, or were closely related to, attainted Lancastrians
4. 29 went into exile (including HT and Jasper) and some were servants
5. 40 fought at Bosworth (as far as we know)
6. 25 were closely related to EW or held office under her
7. 16 were associated or related to MB
So what does it tell us?
There are significant regional variations. Kent unsurprisingly was Woodville country but another 12 Woodville relatives or close servants had been distributed in other parts of the country or were already supporting HT. Of the Kent rebels 15 came from families who had participated in the Cade rebellion so 'rent a mob' ruled.
The further South West you go then again, unsurprisingly, the more influence was exerted by MB and Morton but at this stage not a lot. The West Country and Southampton need further exploration: the wool industry and 1470s history feature there. The North West, where there was significant Stafford (and Stanley) influence, doesn't feature at all.
This is just the bare bones of my work ( I have a sheet on each rebel which tells its own story) and now needs following through to 1485 but there is nothing I've found (apart from Woodville input) which is to do with:
a. the restoration of a boy king
b. discontent with any policy that Richard has introduced
It's about exploiting the grievances of the discontented to meet the ends of some individuals and that's important when we come to look at Richard's reputation and what rumour and some historians would have us believe. I reckon the world hasn't moved far on from that. H PS the fact that he only executed 10 rebels out of 164 hardly fits with the ruthless tyrant, but some of us have been saying that for years.

Absolutely to both things you say, though to be fair some had died in the interim but not 90 odd! The next part of the exercise is to look at the others who fought - the first thing you notice of course is the Welsh.I think it's sad Edward didn't embrace De Vere. He was a good soldier and one who stayed true to his principles all along. So many small things like this could have ensured HT never got a foot in. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 22:34
Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Thanks for the numeric breakdown, Hilary. And with all that, only forty of those men fought for Henry at Bosworth? I'll bet that 29 of them were his original followers. And one, of course, was Oxford, arrested not by Richard but by Edward some ten years before. I know that Oxford had a legitimate grudge against the House of York, specifically Edward, but for Richard's sake, I wish Edward had executed him when he had both reason and opportunity.

Carol

I want to do the next bit Jan - and to chase those 22. Interestingly a quarter of them are made up of the guys who tried to break into the Tower. It makes you wonder why they are so deliberately anonymous (I've managed to chase most of the elusive) and if they were chosen for exactly that reason. And who chose them and instructed them is the very big question! H

From: "Jan Mulrenan janmulrenan@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 23:12
Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Jan here.Thank you, Hilary, for your hard work & interesting results. Will you publish?
Sent from my iPad
On 27 Sep 2016, at 16:29, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

They say numbers can't lie (except lies, d... lies and statistics) so here we go.
There were 164 attainted rebels who caused trouble in the following regions made up as follows:
Kent 45Salisbury 32Newbury 17Torrington 9Exeter 20Bodmin 4Dorset/Somerset 5Cornwall/Devon 3The rest 29
So far I've been able to trace (i.e. pin down to a family and links) 142 so I think we can say it's a fair sample.
Of these:
1. 55 had been planted in counties that were not their own. In Newbury in particular 13 out of 17 rebels came from elsewhere
2. 118 rebels were either related to one another or were servants of a rebel
3. 16 were, or were closely related to, attainted Lancastrians
4. 29 went into exile (including HT and Jasper) and some were servants
5. 40 fought at Bosworth (as far as we know)
6. 25 were closely related to EW or held office under her
7. 16 were associated or related to MB
So what does it tell us?
There are significant regional variations. Kent unsurprisingly was Woodville country but another 12 Woodville relatives or close servants had been distributed in other parts of the country or were already supporting HT. Of the Kent rebels 15 came from families who had participated in the Cade rebellion so 'rent a mob' ruled.
The further South West you go then again, unsurprisingly, the more influence was exerted by MB and Morton but at this stage not a lot. The West Country and Southampton need further exploration: the wool industry and 1470s history feature there. The North West, where there was significant Stafford (and Stanley) influence, doesn't feature at all.
This is just the bare bones of my work ( I have a sheet on each rebel which tells its own story) and now needs following through to 1485 but there is nothing I've found (apart from Woodville input) which is to do with:
a. the restoration of a boy king
b. discontent with any policy that Richard has introduced
It's about exploiting the grievances of the discontented to meet the ends of some individuals and that's important when we come to look at Richard's reputation and what rumour and some historians would have us believe. I reckon the world hasn't moved far on from that. H PS the fact that he only executed 10 rebels out of 164 hardly fits with the ruthless tyrant, but some of us have been saying that for years.

The more I think about Buckingham the more he fits the exact pattern of a sociopath - and I do know something about them. He swoops on Richard at a time of extreme vulnerability (he's lost Edward and having to deal with all sorts of plots). He flatters him and Richard's not used to flattery, it wouldn't have worked on Edward. Then he isolates him from the influence of others by intimating that he and he alone is Richard's right-hand man. Richard is probably so preoccupied that he doesn't even notice this is going on - but others do and worry and these include Hastings (setting him up for a fall).The next stage is control - sociopaths have enormous egos and think they can't fail. For a time this works but sometime near the Coronation, probably just after it, it becomes clear that Richard is no pushover, after all he's been as good as running the place for years. So Buckingham has lost control of his victim and that's when it all falls apart. Why, for example, does he stay in London rather than going on the Progress? One would have thought he'd have wanted to preen?So he rebels, which is useful for other plotters, but everyone but himself knows he's onto a loser. The big question though is why he stayed in London.Just my thoughts H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 21:52
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Bucks rebellion continues to be a mystery...frustratingly..eileen

Agree Eileen very interesting. It also chimes with my memory of reading that after Tewkesbury MB considered HT as the Lancastrian heir. I thought that I had read it in Charles Oman's "Warwick the Kingmaker" but I re-hecked and it wasn't. I also re-checked many of the books I had read around the same time but I couldn't find it.
Now we know he was definitely not the Lancastrian heir or anyone else's heir but I am convinced that she was determined to put him on the throne. So why were the Woodvilles and their followers involved with Tudor? It could be that they assumed that MB wanted E5 on the throne and was helping in order for HT to come back to England. The only other explanation is that Edward Woodville and Thomas Grey were only concerned about themselves and didn't really care about E5 and Richard of Shrewsbury and possibly that EW had realized that legally she was never going to be able to re-claim the throne for E5 so joined with MB hoping to win back some power through E of York.
Mary

Hilary with regard to the Welsh, I read a genealogy site about Matthew Craddock and apparently he is supposed to have fought for HT at Bosworth though there is no official record and the comment was that he could have been in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue. Also apparently the Earl of Huntingdon didn't fight for Richard at Bosworth but did well under HT, also he supported Craddock who did very well under the Tudors too.
Mary

Mary: It could be that they assumed that MB wanted E5 on the throne and was helping in order for HT to come back to England. The only other explanation is that Edward Woodville and Thomas Grey were only concerned about themselves and didn't really care about E5 and Richard of Shrewsbury and possibly that EW had realized that legally she was never going to be able to re-claim the throne for E5 so joined with MB hoping to win back some power through E of York.

Eileen:. It seems to me Mary that EW was between a rock and a hard place. She probably had to rely on messages sent by MB to try to find out what was going on outside the sanctuary. I think your above speculations are all plausible....for what it's worth I suspect that she may have been duped by MB which led to her agreeing to the marriage of daughter and HT...which backfired spectacularly when she found out she had been lied to and then proceeded to get involved in the Lambert Simnel plot..of course we all,know the outcome to that don't we..Bermondsey Abbey..while MB went from strength to strength acquiring properties etc., willy nilly..Furthermore I think EW was a clever, devious woman but MB cleverer and even more devious. EW may well have had no one close at hand with her best interests at heart while in sanctuary to advise her..however it's hard to feel pity for EW although I have to say she did pay a very, very heavy price. EoY seems (to me) to have been as useful as a chocolate teapot with regard to helping out her dear old mum. Eileen

Mary wrote:

"So why were the Woodvilles and their followers involved with Tudor? It could be that they assumed that MB wanted E5 on the throne and was helping in order for HT to come back to England. The only other explanation is that Edward Woodville and Thomas Grey were only concerned about themselves and didn't really care about E5 and Richard of Shrewsbury and possibly that EW had realized that legally she was never going to be able to re-claim the throne for E5 so joined with MB hoping to win back some power through E of York."

Carol responds:

I suspect that Edward Woodville originally wanted Francis of Brittany's support against Richard (as Protector) and met Henry Tudor at Francis's court. He could have offered Henry a ride home and maybe even a marriage to EW if he joined the Woodville cause. He certainly wasn't interested in putting Henry Tudor on the throne at that time! As for Dorset, he was probably just interested in saving his own neck and/or going along with Uncle Edward for the adventure. He and Henry T. might have hit it off, being about the same age, but they had so little in common that I doubt it.

Carol

Indeed to the last. In fact one only has to compare the actions of EW with how the much-maligned MOA would have reacted. She would have fought the decision, literally, to the last not cowered in an Abbey. EW had been queen for nigh on twenty years. One would have thought she could have commanded a bit more support than her relatives in Kent, which probably tells you a bit about what people thought of her re Richard and indeed the decision in general.Re MB I think at this point she was an opportunist - the last hope to get her Henry back. What I neglected to say was what I didn't find among my rebels1. Any Welshmen except Lewis Carleon who was a messenger for MB2. Any significant numbers of gentry from the South or South West. There were actually a lot there with Lancastrian sympathies who carried on sheep farming and kept their heads down3. Any significant numbers of High Sheriffs (present and former) - except in Cornwall. Cornwall is an enigma and needs further investigation.4. Any close relatives of MB unless you count John Welles, but he had his own grudge against Edward5. Anyone from north of Newbury except Christopher Urswick who'd been with MB since her Stafford days.H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 15:20
Subject: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!




Mary: It could be that they assumed that MB wanted E5 on the throne and was helping in order for HT to come back to England. The only other explanation is that Edward Woodville and Thomas Grey were only concerned about themselves and didn't really care about E5 and Richard of Shrewsbury and possibly that EW had realized that legally she was never going to be able to re-claim the throne for E5 so joined with MB hoping to win back some power through E of York.

Eileen:. It seems to me Mary that EW was between a rock and a hard place. She probably had to rely on messages sent by MB to try to find out what was going on outside the sanctuary. I think your above speculations are all plausible....for what it's worth I suspect that she may have been duped by MB which led to her agreeing to the marriage of daughter and HT...which backfired spectacularly when she found out she had been lied to and then proceeded to get involved in the Lambert Simnel plot..of course we all,know the outcome to that don't we..Bermondsey Abbey..while MB went from strength to strength acquiring properties etc., willy nilly..Furthermore I think EW was a clever, devious woman but MB cleverer and even more devious. EW may well have had no one close at hand with her best interests at heart while in sanctuary to advise her..however it's hard to feel pity for EW although I have to say she did pay a very, very heavy price. EoY seems (to me) to have been as useful as a chocolate teapot with regard to helping out her dear old mum. Eileen

Yes Mary, I've got Mathew Craddock on the Bosworth list too. And John (ap) Morgan who married Lucy Hampton (before or after Bosworth we don't know but her sisters were certainly married before Bosworth).What went wrong with the Welsh and the House of York - after all they'd had their own tussle with the Lancs in 1403? One could blame Edgcote (and the toll there was indeed terrible) but that was Warwick, not Edward. I have an awful feeling I'm going to have to dig back to 1403 and that could well involve another look at Richard's colleague Mr Percy who just happened to be married to a Herbert. Whatever, I'm going to have to get my head round Welsh history. Did I see somewhere that there is a book on Rhys ap Thomas? Has anyone out there read it? H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2016, 13:49
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Hilary with regard to the Welsh, I read a genealogy site about Matthew Craddock and apparently he is supposed to have fought for HT at Bosworth though there is no official record and the comment was that he could have been in Rhys ap Thomas's retinue. Also apparently the Earl of Huntingdon didn't fight for Richard at Bosworth but did well under HT, also he supported Craddock who did very well under the Tudors too.
Mary

I wonder if maybe Craddock and co were in Rhys ap Thomas' retinue when he was promising that HT would travel over his dead body and then when Thomas turned his coat they had no choice but to support Tudor or their lives would have been in danger.
I have not seen anything about a book on Rhys ap Thomas and would be very loath to spend money on it but maybe in search of some evidence of what went on at the time I might hold my nose and need it!Mary

Sorry should be read it

The only book I know of concerning Rhys ap Thomas is Sir Rhys ap Thomas and His Family: A Study in the Wars of the Roses and Early Tudor Politics Paperback  15 Jan 2013 by Ralph A. Griffiths It's available at Amazon, £24.99. Can't copy and paste the link. =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:10 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results! I have not seen anything about a book on Rhys ap Thomas and would be very loath to spend money on it but maybe in search of some evidence of what went on at the time I might hold my nose and need it! Mary

I agree about the Rhys ap Thomas myth! I've been doing some more work this morning and guess what, they were related. Craddock was also son-in -law to Philip Maunsel, who had been executed after Tewkesbury and his sons killed at Barnet for supporting Warwick. Lot more still to do though. Doubt there's much high level honour in this - more grudges and greed. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 11:10
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

I wonder if maybe Craddock and co were in Rhys ap Thomas' retinue when he was promising that HT would travel over his dead body and then when Thomas turned his coat they had no choice but to support Tudor or their lives would have been in danger.
I have not seen anything about a book on Rhys ap Thomas and would be very loath to spend money on it but maybe in search of some evidence of what went on at the time I might hold my nose and need it!Mary

Thanks Sandra. I shall not be spending that on him :) :) H

From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 13:33
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

The only book I know of concerning Rhys ap Thomas is Sir Rhys ap Thomas and His Family: A Study in the Wars of the Roses and Early Tudor Politics Paperback  15 Jan 2013 by Ralph A. Griffiths It's available at Amazon, £24.99. Can't copy and paste the link. =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:10 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results! I have not seen anything about a book on Rhys ap Thomas and would be very loath to spend money on it but maybe in search of some evidence of what went on at the time I might hold my nose and need it! Mary

Hilary wrote: It's very difficult to know what deals were brokered - HT's return in exchange for supporting Woodvilles and young Edward? Certainly at least one rebel was a messenger between EW and MB. What really strikes me though is that this went down in history as 'Buckingham's rebellion' but where is his support? A necromancer and a couple of folks in Brecon. So much for the Tudor version of history which has been repeated ad infinitum. Doug here: Perhaps if we viewed it as MB's support in return for HT's return that might better explain it? IOW, MB's Lancastrian-oriented affinity would be allied to Buckingham's affinity and <b>both</b> would have the added support of some Edward V Yorkists which would naturally include the Woodvilles and any of their affinity. The idea being, I would suppose, to quickly marshal enough men to be able to defeat Richard in one, decisive battle. Of course, it would all depend on how fast those men could be raised and concentrated and that was where it all fell apart. As for it being called Buckingham's Rebellion, didn't he issue a signed proclamation stating the reasons for his actions? And wasn't it that proclamation that, so to speak, started ball rolling? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

How were Thomas and Craddock related? The Mansells were still prominent in Wales, or to be precise Glamorgan, into at least the 19th century or even later. Along with the Turbevilles and the Talbots.
Mary

Hilary wrote:

"What I neglected to say was what I didn't find among my rebels . . .
Any close relatives of MB unless you count John Welles, but he had his own grudge against Edward"

Carol responds:

Which makes it very suspicious that he would organize an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower! Wonder what he had in mind--and how the boys' sister Cecily felt about being forced to divorce the husband Richard chose for her and marry Welles.

Carol

All, having a new member stirs up all you wonderful scholars and experts, and makes for such good reads. In the midst of a roller coaster year, you offer a welcome respite, and a brain test.
On Sep 30, 2016, at 10:33 AM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"What I neglected to say was what I didn't find among my rebels . . .
Any close relatives of MB unless you count John Welles, but he had his own grudge against Edward"

Carol responds:

Which makes it very suspicious that he would organize an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower! Wonder what he had in mind--and how the boys' sister Cecily felt about being forced to divorce the husband Richard chose for her and marry Welles.

Carol

Indeed. Unless EW and her brothers organised it? Buckingham must have been seriously mad to raise his standard with no real support. Our rebels fall into the very strange categories of the Woodville/Kentish mob - no obvious support for him there, a group of Southampton wool merchants and town officials - not the sort he'd gel, with and some Cornish High Sheriffs who were probably upset with Bodrugan for arresting one of their ship-owning campatriots for piracy. All in all not a very high-minded lot. H

From: "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 30 September 2016, 16:51
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

All, having a new member stirs up all you wonderful scholars and experts, and makes for such good reads. In the midst of a roller coaster year, you offer a welcome respite, and a brain test.
On Sep 30, 2016, at 10:33 AM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:




Hilary wrote:

"What I neglected to say was what I didn't find among my rebels . . .
Any close relatives of MB unless you count John Welles, but he had his own grudge against Edward"

Carol responds:

Which makes it very suspicious that he would organize an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower! Wonder what he had in mind--and how the boys' sister Cecily felt about being forced to divorce the husband Richard chose for her and marry Welles.

Carol

Hi Mary sorry to be so long coming back. It depends who was Matthew Craddock's father. If he was the brother of Sir John Newton which English genealogists would have us believe, then he was indeed descended from one of the two children of Elider Ddu, Rhys ap Thomas was descended from the other. So there is definitely a link between Sir John Newton and Rhys, depending on how important they deemed it to be descended from Elider and we know John boasted of his Welsh ancestry. I actually don't think the English version is right for Matthew and that in fact he is descended from another Richard Caradog from Pembroke and Jenet Horton so I'm still trying to link them all up. It's all very Arthurian, isn't it (black knights etc), which is what I suppose HT played on - using old legends to back up a non-existent claim. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 21:19
Subject: Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

How were Thomas and Craddock related? The Mansells were still prominent in Wales, or to be precise Glamorgan, into at least the 19th century or even later. Along with the Turbevilles and the Talbots.
Mary

Yes to all this Doug. I suppose as Buckingham was mad enough to believe he could do all this they let him get on with it - after all anything which caused additional disruption had to be good. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2016, 20:19
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: 1483 Rebel Analysis - the Results!

Hilary wrote: It's very difficult to know what deals were brokered - HT's return in exchange for supporting Woodvilles and young Edward? Certainly at least one rebel was a messenger between EW and MB. What really strikes me though is that this went down in history as 'Buckingham's rebellion' but where is his support? A necromancer and a couple of folks in Brecon. So much for the Tudor version of history which has been repeated ad infinitum. Doug here: Perhaps if we viewed it as MB's support in return for HT's return that might better explain it? IOW, MB's Lancastrian-oriented affinity would be allied to Buckingham's affinity and <b>both</b> would have the added support of some Edward V Yorkists which would naturally include the Woodvilles and any of their affinity. The idea being, I would suppose, to quickly marshal enough men to be able to defeat Richard in one, decisive battle. Of course, it would all depend on how fast those men could be raised and concentrated and that was where it all fell apart. As for it being called Buckingham's Rebellion, didn't he issue a signed proclamation stating the reasons for his actions? And wasn't it that proclamation that, so to speak, started ball rolling? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol wrote:
Which makes it very suspicious that he would organize an attempt to "rescue" the "Princes" from the Tower! Wonder what he had in mind--and how the boys' sister Cecily felt about being forced to divorce the husband Richard chose for her and marry Welles. Doug here: Does anyone know exactly <i>where</i> in the Tower complex the boys were housed? Because it seems to me that if they were actually locked up it would take more than three of four men to get to them, let alone get them out! If, however, the boys were being kept in one of the buildings inside the Tower walls of which there were several then, while it might be much easier to get <i>to</i> them, one is still faced with the problem of getting them <b>out</b>! Presuming, of course, that was ever the intent... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.