Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Last week I was lucky enough to acquire Carole Rawcliffe's book on the Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham. I tracked it down in an attempt to understand 'pschyo Henry'. It's an impressive tome in the style of Horrox and Carpenter but the excerpt concerning Buckingham's rebellion is full of lashings of More and Mancini (though to be fair with a health warning).
What did emerge though was that Buckingham, like his predecessors and successor, was broke. In fact he was so spectacularly broke that all Richard's gifts went nowhere near wiping out the overdraft. So the one way forward left was the Crown. Apparently the same applied to ROY and Rawcliffe thinks Buckingham was probably emulating him - so much for plucking roses in the Temple gardens it always comes down to money .
The reason the Stafford Dukes were broke was firstly an over-lavish lifestyle (surprise!) and secondly a particularly difficult property portfolio which required Receivers in nearly every county. If they were tardy in collecting revenues cashflow became dire. The Receivers are an eclectic lot, they include two or three rebels, Bouteyne, John Wingfield, Nicholas Latimer (Clarence's buddy) and others like John Twynyho (another Clarence buddy), John Talbot, Eleanor's brother (who had married a Stafford) and even Will Hastings for a year in 1473. It gets rather amusing when MB and Bray leap in and try to sort it out in late 1485.
However, the jewel in the crown of Stafford properties was Holderness in Yorkshire. It had come into the family via Duchess Anne Neville (Cis's' much older sister) and was worth a huge £700 a year in revenues, almost four times as much as other possessions. The Receivers of Holderness were therefore very close to the Staffords - and they were the Constables of Halsham and John Holme of Holderness. Now a few of you may recall that the Constables, the Holmes, the Inglebys and the Stillingtons were joined at the hip as they had been intermarrying for at least a hundred years and probably longer.
I then moved on to the detailed list of close lawyers and Councillors of the Staffords. There are about a dozen of them since 1400 and they included eminent judges like Sir John Markham and Holme himself who was both a Judge and Chief Baron of the Exchequer - that's probably another reason they were broke! By 1483 one of the few close Councillors who still survived was - Sir Richard Cholke, guardian of Stillington's grandchildren. He had been with the Staffords for over twenty years. The other interesting one is a certain William Catesby who had been with them for about eight years.
Now this, I reckon, raises at least one interesting question (and probably a lot more).Did Buckingham know about the Pre-Contract and is this why he swooped on an unwitting Richard because he knew what was going to happen? Similarly, had the Woodvilles been warned, either by sister Buckingham or MB? This would explain their extreme reaction on the death of Edward. And it would also explain the complete isolation of Hastings. Furthermore, if it was old knowledge (we know nothing could be done during Edward's lifetime) would it not be an incentive to take out the alternative heir, Clarence?
All this needs of course more digging but I never had Stillington and the Staffords together until now. BTW It's interesting that the Bishop of Bath and Wells/Archbishop of Canterbury before Beckynton was John Stafford, albeit from the Dorset branch. He too had been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI. I wonder if he was instrumental in bringing the young Stillington to that King's attention - the dates would be about right?
Sorry it's so long. H
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Is there a pie that the creepy Catesby did not have his finger in?????
Eileen..having great difficulty posting ...doh!
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
It has just occurred to me and it is only a theory, that in his book The Death of Edward IV Collins suggests that Rivers could have been in league with Buckingham because Brecon was not far from Ludlow. I don't think he cites any evidence but in view of what you have discovered it could be a possibility. If he knew through his wife what the Woodvilles were up to he could have been pretending to be supporting them while all the while plotting to take the throne himself. My other theory that if MB was aiming for the throne for Henry she would have to make sure that none of the heirs or anyone like Hastings were left alive,. so Buck would have been in the same position Buck might have gone to meet Richard and set up the meeting with Rivers and maybe he was in on the plot to kill Richard on the road to Stony Stratford but Richard was too clever for them and we all know how that ended. He would have had no choice but to carry on to London with Richard.Well it is only a theory but I suppose it is possible.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re your other point - if the secret came at the last moment from Confessor Ingleby to Stillington to Buckingham then I do understand how Richard in Yorkshire would have been out of the loop and it would have been a marvellous opportunity for Buckingham to look like a loyal supporter in place for when the news broke. If it had been known for years then I'm a bit with you. I do wonder how much Richard was ever considered a serious contender for the throne in the way Clarence was. Could it possibly be that, even though he was a good soldier, he looked fragile (we know that now from his bones as well) and people thought with their limited knowledge of scoliosis that he might not live long?
BTW we have some interesting little groups developing. Judge Newton is brother in law to Eleanor and a friend and neighbour to Judge Cholke who is a top Councillor to the Staffords and somewhere in this sits our 'naughty Bishop' to quote Commines. And there is another name as a Stafford supporter - one Walter Moyle from Bodmin. He is the father of John Moyle whom Richard sent to enquire into the rebels in Kent and the grandfather of Sir Thomas Moyle on whose doorstep the mysterious bricklayer called Plantagenet turned up. I don't think we can disregard Richard of Eastwell either. H
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2016, 17:34
Subject: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Bucks could have found out about the precontract via his his Woodville wife..he could have then gone onto inform his auntie...MB? I do struggle with Richard being practically the only one not in on the 'secret' although of course anything is possible.
Is there a pie that the creepy Catesby did not have his finger in?????
Eileen..having great difficulty posting ...doh!
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2016, 20:25
Subject: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Intriguing Hilary. Do you think that Auntie Mag was supporting him so that Henry could come back to England or was she plotting all time to make Henry King.
It has just occurred to me and it is only a theory, that in his book The Death of Edward IV Collins suggests that Rivers could have been in league with Buckingham because Brecon was not far from Ludlow. I don't think he cites any evidence but in view of what you have discovered it could be a possibility. If he knew through his wife what the Woodvilles were up to he could have been pretending to be supporting them while all the while plotting to take the throne himself. My other theory that if MB was aiming for the throne for Henry she would have to make sure that none of the heirs or anyone like Hastings were left alive,. so Buck would have been in the same position Buck might have gone to meet Richard and set up the meeting with Rivers and maybe he was in on the plot to kill Richard on the road to Stony Stratford but Richard was too clever for them and we all know how that ended. He would have had no choice but to carry on to London with Richard.Well it is only a theory but I suppose it is possible.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2016, 11:08
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
The more I think about it the more I come to think that the fate of the boys was down to Bucks..I believe Geoffrey Richardson in his "The Deceivers' more or less hit the nail on the head i.e. Bucks being used by MB, Moreton and Bray...Bucks just being no more than collateral damage and who no doubt believed or had been led to believe that he would himself be the next King. Im now beginning to vere more strongly now to the idea (after years of chopping and changing my mind) that the boys did not survive the machinations of this nest of vipers and that Bucks was indeed right up there in their demise. No wonder Richard referred to him as 'the most untrue creature' in his letter..and also this would explain EW entrusting her surviving children to Richard. Presumably Bucks, if his rebellion had been successful would not have survived long afterwards either because MB/Mortons intentions were that her son would be the one sitting on the throne and Bucks could have gone on to be a right pain in the bottom if he had been led to believe..or his own belief..that he would/should have been the next King..what a dupe! What a frustration and a big mistake that Richard would not listen to what Bucks had to say before his execution..things may well have panned out very differently if he had known the full extent of MBs plotting..but there you go. Eileen
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
IMHO the boys never survived to be brought up somewhere safely, abroad or otherwise, they were dead in 1483, Richard informed EW they were dead but not by his hand which explains her otherwise odd behaviour, PW was a fraud, the bones were a 17th century hoax and lifes not fair...
Miss Marple..
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham and Stillingto
Last week I was lucky enough to acquire Carole Rawcliffe's book on the Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham. I tracked it down in an attempt to understand 'pschyo Henry'. It's an impressive tome in the style of Horrox and Carpenter but the excerpt concerning Buckingham's rebellion is full of lashings of More and Mancini (though to be fair with a health warning).
What did emerge though was that Buckingham, like his predecessors and successor, was broke. In fact he was so spectacularly broke that all Richard's gifts went nowhere near wiping out the overdraft. So the one way forward left was the Crown. Apparently the same applied to ROY and Rawcliffe thinks Buckingham was probably emulating him - so much for plucking roses in the Temple gardens it always comes down to money .
The reason the Stafford Dukes were broke was firstly an over-lavish lifestyle (surprise!) and secondly a particularly difficult property portfolio which required Receivers in nearly every county. If they were tardy in collecting revenues cashflow became dire. The Receivers are an eclectic lot, they include two or three rebels, Bouteyne, John Wingfield, Nicholas Latimer (Clarence's buddy) and others like John Twynyho (another Clarence buddy), John Talbot, Eleanor's brother (who had married a Stafford) and even Will Hastings for a year in 1473. It gets rather amusing when MB and Bray leap in and try to sort it out in late 1485.
However, the jewel in the crown of Stafford properties was Holderness in Yorkshire. It had come into the family via Duchess Anne Neville (Cis's' much older sister) and was worth a huge £700 a year in revenues, almost four times as much as other possessions. The Receivers of Holderness were therefore very close to the Staffords - and they were the Constables of Halsham and John Holme of Holderness. Now a few of you may recall that the Constables, the Holmes, the Inglebys and the Stillingtons were joined at the hip as they had been intermarrying for at least a hundred years and probably longer.
Doug here:
How much of ROY's and the Staffords' indebtedness was due to the costs of providing men for France, as well as the various battles during the WotR? Is there any way to find out? Does that term Receivers mean what I think it does: that they were appointed to collect monies to repay Stafford debts before said monies ever reached Stafford hands?
Hilary continued:
I then moved on to the detailed list of close lawyers and Councillors of the Staffords. There are about a dozen of them since 1400 and they included eminent judges like Sir John Markham and Holme himself who was both a Judge and Chief Baron of the Exchequer - that's probably another reason they were broke! By 1483 one of the few close Councillors who still survived was - Sir Richard Cholke, guardian of Stillington's grandchildren. He had been with the Staffords for over twenty years. The other interesting one is a certain William Catesby who had been with them for about eight years.
Doug here:
The connection between the Stillingtons and various lawyers and Councillors for the Staffords is interesting, especially when one considers that such links made in order to benefit the parties involved. Also an excellent way to keep an eye on people, as long as one isn't too blatant.
Hilary concluded:
Now this, I reckon, raises at least one interesting question (and probably a lot more).Did Buckingham know about the Pre-Contract and is this why he swooped on an unwitting Richard because he knew what was going to happen? Similarly, had the Woodvilles been warned, either by sister Buckingham or MB? This would explain their extreme reaction on the death of Edward. And it would also explain the complete isolation of Hastings. Furthermore, if it was old knowledge (we know nothing could be done during Edward's lifetime) would it not be an incentive to take out the alternative heir, Clarence?
All this needs of course more digging but I never had Stillington and the Staffords together until now. BTW It's interesting that the Bishop of Bath and Wells/Archbishop of Canterbury before Beckynton was John Stafford, albeit from the Dorset branch. He too had been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI. I wonder if he was instrumental in bringing the young Stillington to that King's attention - the dates would be about right?
Doug here:
The basic problem I see with Buckingham knowing about the Pre-Contract before Edward IV's death is why didn't he tell Richard as soon as they met? Why would Stillington, or anyone for that matter, tell Buckingham about the Pre-Contract, and that there was evidence to support it, but not tell Richard? If Richard was to be the next King and not his nephew, why wait until June? Why not at least pass word to Richard as soon as possible after Edward's death that there was a serious impediment to his nephew assuming the throne and Richard would need to get to London post haste?
The same reasoning, I think, applies to the Woodvilles. If they had known Edward was married to someone else when he'd gone through his marriage to EW, it was imperative that on Edward IV's death that Edward V get to London ASAP and be crowned. There was a vast difference between a proclaimed king, both legally and as a matter of politics, and a King who had been crowned. Not to mention that once crowned, the Council, under Woodville direction of course, could hobble Richard's Protectorate, leaving the real power in the hands of Edward V, his advisors (aka his Woodville relations) and the Council (also likely controlled by the Woodvilles).
In regards to Clarence, I think Edward outsmarted himself. I rather think that what Edward wanted to do was neuter Clarence, making it impossible for his brother to cause trouble; especially as the one person George seemed to listen to, Isabel, was no longer there to rein him in. I don't know why Edward chose Parliament as the venue for George's trial but, I believe, it backfired. Had Edward had George tried in a regular court of law the decision would likely still been the same, but the public involvement of Parliament made it that much more difficult for Edward to resist the wishes of those he himself had involved. IOW, by trying George in Parliament, Edward had seemingly claimed George's actions were a dire threat to the peace and well-being of the realm! When, in my view, actually all Edward wanted was a legal decision he could hold over George to ensure his brother's good behavior. Doug--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Mary
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham and Stillingto
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2016, 17:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hilary wrote: Last week I was lucky enough to acquire Carole Rawcliffe's book on the Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham. I tracked it down in an attempt to understand 'pschyo Henry'. It's an impressive tome in the style of Horrox and Carpenter but the excerpt concerning Buckingham's rebellion is full of lashings of More and Mancini (though to be fair with a health warning). What did emerge though was that Buckingham, like his predecessors and successor, was broke. In fact he was so spectacularly broke that all Richard's gifts went nowhere near wiping out the overdraft. So the one way forward left was the Crown. Apparently the same applied to ROY and Rawcliffe thinks Buckingham was probably emulating him - so much for plucking roses in the Temple gardens it always comes down to money . The reason the Stafford Dukes were broke was firstly an over-lavish lifestyle (surprise!) and secondly a particularly difficult property portfolio which required Receivers in nearly every county. If they were tardy in collecting revenues cashflow became dire. The Receivers are an eclectic lot, they include two or three rebels, Bouteyne, John Wingfield, Nicholas Latimer (Clarence's buddy) and others like John Twynyho (another Clarence buddy), John Talbot, Eleanor's brother (who had married a Stafford) and even Will Hastings for a year in 1473. It gets rather amusing when MB and Bray leap in and try to sort it out in late 1485. However, the jewel in the crown of Stafford properties was Holderness in Yorkshire. It had come into the family via Duchess Anne Neville (Cis's' much older sister) and was worth a huge £700 a year in revenues, almost four times as much as other possessions. The Receivers of Holderness were therefore very close to the Staffords - and they were the Constables of Halsham and John Holme of Holderness. Now a few of you may recall that the Constables, the Holmes, the Inglebys and the Stillingtons were joined at the hip as they had been intermarrying for at least a hundred years and probably longer. Doug here: How much of ROY's and the Staffords' indebtedness was due to the costs of providing men for France, as well as the various battles during the WotR? Is there any way to find out? Does that term Receivers mean what I think it does: that they were appointed to collect monies to repay Stafford debts before said monies ever reached Stafford hands? Hilary continued: I then moved on to the detailed list of close lawyers and Councillors of the Staffords. There are about a dozen of them since 1400 and they included eminent judges like Sir John Markham and Holme himself who was both a Judge and Chief Baron of the Exchequer - that's probably another reason they were broke! By 1483 one of the few close Councillors who still survived was - Sir Richard Cholke, guardian of Stillington's grandchildren. He had been with the Staffords for over twenty years. The other interesting one is a certain William Catesby who had been with them for about eight years. Doug here: The connection between the Stillingtons and various lawyers and Councillors for the Staffords is interesting, especially when one considers that such links made in order to benefit the parties involved. Also an excellent way to keep an eye on people, as long as one isn't too blatant. Hilary concluded: Now this, I reckon, raises at least one interesting question (and probably a lot more).Did Buckingham know about the Pre-Contract and is this why he swooped on an unwitting Richard because he knew what was going to happen? Similarly, had the Woodvilles been warned, either by sister Buckingham or MB? This would explain their extreme reaction on the death of Edward. And it would also explain the complete isolation of Hastings. Furthermore, if it was old knowledge (we know nothing could be done during Edward's lifetime) would it not be an incentive to take out the alternative heir, Clarence? All this needs of course more digging but I never had Stillington and the Staffords together until now. BTW It's interesting that the Bishop of Bath and Wells/Archbishop of Canterbury before Beckynton was John Stafford, albeit from the Dorset branch. He too had been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI. I wonder if he was instrumental in bringing the young Stillington to that King's attention - the dates would be about right? Doug here: The basic problem I see with Buckingham knowing about the Pre-Contract before Edward IV's death is why didn't he tell Richard as soon as they met? Why would Stillington, or anyone for that matter, tell Buckingham about the Pre-Contract, and that there was evidence to support it, but not tell Richard? If Richard was to be the next King and not his nephew, why wait until June? Why not at least pass word to Richard as soon as possible after Edward's death that there was a serious impediment to his nephew assuming the throne and Richard would need to get to London post haste? The same reasoning, I think, applies to the Woodvilles. If they had known Edward was married to someone else when he'd gone through his marriage to EW, it was imperative that on Edward IV's death that Edward V get to London ASAP and be crowned. There was a vast difference between a proclaimed king, both legally and as a matter of politics, and a King who had been crowned. Not to mention that once crowned, the Council, under Woodville direction of course, could hobble Richard's Protectorate, leaving the real power in the hands of Edward V, his advisors (aka his Woodville relations) and the Council (also likely controlled by the Woodvilles). In regards to Clarence, I think Edward outsmarted himself. I rather think that what Edward wanted to do was neuter Clarence, making it impossible for his brother to cause trouble; especially as the one person George seemed to listen to, Isabel, was no longer there to rein him in. I don't know why Edward chose Parliament as the venue for George's trial but, I believe, it backfired. Had Edward had George tried in a regular court of law the decision would likely still been the same, but the public involvement of Parliament made it that much more difficult for Edward to resist the wishes of those he himself had involved. IOW, by trying George in Parliament, Edward had seemingly claimed George's actions were a dire threat to the peace and well-being of the realm! When, in my view, actually all Edward wanted was a legal decision he could hold over George to ensure his brother's good behavior. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2016, 21:47
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Its odd Mary..it seems to have been commonplace to interrogate prisoners and yet on this occasion Richard refuses to listen to what the prisoner had to say..perhaps he had his reasons..presuming the story is true..Eileen
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Its odd Mary..it seems to have been commonplace to interrogate prisoners and yet on this occasion Richard refuses to listen to what the prisoner had to say..perhaps he had his reasons..presuming the story is true..Eileen
Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham and Stillingto
As to why Stillington would tell the Staffords it really does depend on for whom he was working and what he stood to get out of it. If he had a long affinity with the family then I can indeed understand it. He does follow the career path of John Stafford, perhaps he fancied Canterbury down the line, the longevity of Bourchier must have annoyed a few? He is the sort of man the Staffords would retain, albeit unofficially, and no clergy are listed. They after all retained the best legal minds in the country and Stillington was arguably the best of the best. He could even have discussed the legality of it with Richard Cholke (it was a secular decision) and Cholke passed it on to the Staffords. Cholke conveniently died on the 5 July that year. BTW by marrying John Hampton Juliana Stillington became second cousin to Buckingham (and the King) - Hampton's grandfather was brother to Buckingham's grandmother. So that thing from Commines about Stillington wanting his children to marry royalty is not totally without foundation.
Finally, I think it was you who was asking how much lineage meant to the aristocracy/gentry? I mentioned Long Melford the other day. In the beautiful depictions of folk in the stained glass the men wear armour, the judges robes - and the women wear cloaks and dresses emblazoned with their family arms, in other words declaring their high breeding. You can see why a gentleman could never marry the innkeeper's daughter. :) H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2016, 17:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hilary wrote: Last week I was lucky enough to acquire Carole Rawcliffe's book on the Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham. I tracked it down in an attempt to understand 'pschyo Henry'. It's an impressive tome in the style of Horrox and Carpenter but the excerpt concerning Buckingham's rebellion is full of lashings of More and Mancini (though to be fair with a health warning). What did emerge though was that Buckingham, like his predecessors and successor, was broke. In fact he was so spectacularly broke that all Richard's gifts went nowhere near wiping out the overdraft. So the one way forward left was the Crown. Apparently the same applied to ROY and Rawcliffe thinks Buckingham was probably emulating him - so much for plucking roses in the Temple gardens it always comes down to money . The reason the Stafford Dukes were broke was firstly an over-lavish lifestyle (surprise!) and secondly a particularly difficult property portfolio which required Receivers in nearly every county. If they were tardy in collecting revenues cashflow became dire. The Receivers are an eclectic lot, they include two or three rebels, Bouteyne, John Wingfield, Nicholas Latimer (Clarence's buddy) and others like John Twynyho (another Clarence buddy), John Talbot, Eleanor's brother (who had married a Stafford) and even Will Hastings for a year in 1473. It gets rather amusing when MB and Bray leap in and try to sort it out in late 1485. However, the jewel in the crown of Stafford properties was Holderness in Yorkshire. It had come into the family via Duchess Anne Neville (Cis's' much older sister) and was worth a huge £700 a year in revenues, almost four times as much as other possessions. The Receivers of Holderness were therefore very close to the Staffords - and they were the Constables of Halsham and John Holme of Holderness. Now a few of you may recall that the Constables, the Holmes, the Inglebys and the Stillingtons were joined at the hip as they had been intermarrying for at least a hundred years and probably longer. Doug here: How much of ROY's and the Staffords' indebtedness was due to the costs of providing men for France, as well as the various battles during the WotR? Is there any way to find out? Does that term Receivers mean what I think it does: that they were appointed to collect monies to repay Stafford debts before said monies ever reached Stafford hands? Hilary continued: I then moved on to the detailed list of close lawyers and Councillors of the Staffords. There are about a dozen of them since 1400 and they included eminent judges like Sir John Markham and Holme himself who was both a Judge and Chief Baron of the Exchequer - that's probably another reason they were broke! By 1483 one of the few close Councillors who still survived was - Sir Richard Cholke, guardian of Stillington's grandchildren. He had been with the Staffords for over twenty years. The other interesting one is a certain William Catesby who had been with them for about eight years. Doug here: The connection between the Stillingtons and various lawyers and Councillors for the Staffords is interesting, especially when one considers that such links made in order to benefit the parties involved. Also an excellent way to keep an eye on people, as long as one isn't too blatant. Hilary concluded: Now this, I reckon, raises at least one interesting question (and probably a lot more).Did Buckingham know about the Pre-Contract and is this why he swooped on an unwitting Richard because he knew what was going to happen? Similarly, had the Woodvilles been warned, either by sister Buckingham or MB? This would explain their extreme reaction on the death of Edward. And it would also explain the complete isolation of Hastings. Furthermore, if it was old knowledge (we know nothing could be done during Edward's lifetime) would it not be an incentive to take out the alternative heir, Clarence? All this needs of course more digging but I never had Stillington and the Staffords together until now. BTW It's interesting that the Bishop of Bath and Wells/Archbishop of Canterbury before Beckynton was John Stafford, albeit from the Dorset branch. He too had been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI. I wonder if he was instrumental in bringing the young Stillington to that King's attention - the dates would be about right? Doug here: The basic problem I see with Buckingham knowing about the Pre-Contract before Edward IV's death is why didn't he tell Richard as soon as they met? Why would Stillington, or anyone for that matter, tell Buckingham about the Pre-Contract, and that there was evidence to support it, but not tell Richard? If Richard was to be the next King and not his nephew, why wait until June? Why not at least pass word to Richard as soon as possible after Edward's death that there was a serious impediment to his nephew assuming the throne and Richard would need to get to London post haste? The same reasoning, I think, applies to the Woodvilles. If they had known Edward was married to someone else when he'd gone through his marriage to EW, it was imperative that on Edward IV's death that Edward V get to London ASAP and be crowned. There was a vast difference between a proclaimed king, both legally and as a matter of politics, and a King who had been crowned. Not to mention that once crowned, the Council, under Woodville direction of course, could hobble Richard's Protectorate, leaving the real power in the hands of Edward V, his advisors (aka his Woodville relations) and the Council (also likely controlled by the Woodvilles). In regards to Clarence, I think Edward outsmarted himself. I rather think that what Edward wanted to do was neuter Clarence, making it impossible for his brother to cause trouble; especially as the one person George seemed to listen to, Isabel, was no longer there to rein him in. I don't know why Edward chose Parliament as the venue for George's trial but, I believe, it backfired. Had Edward had George tried in a regular court of law the decision would likely still been the same, but the public involvement of Parliament made it that much more difficult for Edward to resist the wishes of those he himself had involved. IOW, by trying George in Parliament, Edward had seemingly claimed George's actions were a dire threat to the peace and well-being of the realm! When, in my view, actually all Edward wanted was a legal decision he could hold over George to ensure his brother's good behavior. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2016, 11:34
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Good point Sandra. Perhaps there was no time...if i recall the Lancastrian leaders were executed pretty quick..the next day..in the market square at Tewkesbury for example..after a quick trial. Presumably Bucks didn't say much at his trial..or not what was recorded...would be interesting to see where this particular story comes from..Eileen
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2016, 13:40
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
(I thought I'd posted this yesterday, in response to Eileen's comment that she struggled with Richard apparently being almost totally out of the loop when Edward IV died. It went walkabout without bouncing, so I'm trying again from a different email address) When it comes to Richard being so completely out on a limb, I struggle too. He may have been away in Yorkshire, but every nobleman back then had agents snooping around, and I'm sure he was no different. Some information/inklings must sure have reached him. Yes, it all happened quickly, but to think that he just sat there, almost with a dunce's cap, makes him seem utterly naive, and although he may have been honest and just, he can't have held the posts and responsibilities that he did and remain naive. He was a highly intelligent man, with all his marbles, as they say. He must have known that Edward was at least ill Edward wasn't hale and hearty one day and dead the next. He had been deteriorating for a while. This would have been a signal to one and all, including Richard, that the king was not immortal. Richard would also have been aware of the Woodvilles' inevitable ambitions to say nothing of his own unpopularity with them. So, in my opinion, he must have been conscious of something bubbling away under the surface. He may not have known exactly what it was, but he'd have been prepared for trouble of one sort or another...and aware that his own life was in danger. Gaining custody of the new king would have been of paramount importance, to get the boy out of Woodville clutches. And rightly so. As to whether or not Richard knew of Eleanor Talbot before 1483, that is another matter. I think a lot of people did. Perhaps he, like them, put it all down to persistent scandalmongering. After all, there was no proof, and who was going to challenge Edward IV to his face? Whoever was supposedly the queen, Edward WAS king. Maybe George had a go when in his cups, but I doubt if Richard was ever in his cups to that extent. Merry, maybe, but hell-raisingly plastered, no. So, at the outset of the troubles of 1483, long-standing whispers notwithstanding, he was prepared to be Lord Protector and see Edward V crowned. But then, at the eleventh hour, came proof that Eleanor and Edward IV had a legal contract of some sort, sufficient to negate the second marriage with Elizabeth Woodville. Then Richard was finally confronted with facts he could not ignore. It wasn't a put-up job. He had not plotted all along to be king, but had put arrangements in place for Edward V's coronation. What caught Richard on the hop was the sudden undeniable evidence that all the whispers about Edward and Eleanor were true. Stillington confronted Richard once Edward IV was dead. He could hardly do so before. Unless, of course, he had once approached George, but if he had, I would be very suspicious about his, Stillington's, motives. And probable associates. In the end, the information was only of use once Edward's death left the way open for his illegitimate son to ascend the throne. Poor Richard didn't enjoy any of it, but he did his duty, and saw that the true succession was adhered to. Whatever else, he died with a clear conscience, which is more than his successor or predecessor did. But to think that Richard was sublimely unaware of anything odd or anyone dodgy is a stretch too far for me. He made some errors, of course, but generally through ill-placed leniency. Buckingham paid the full price, but there remained Margaret Beaufort, Elizabeth Woodville, the Stanleys, Morton...the usual slimy suspects. Heaps of salt on those slippery tails would have done the trick. Not the women, of course. He would never have executed a woman. That was a Tudor enterprise. Sandra From Eileen: I do struggle with Richard being practically the only one not in on the 'secret' although of course anything is possible.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham
As to why Stillington would tell the Staffords it really does depend on for whom he was working and what he stood to get out of it. If he had a long affinity with the family then I can indeed understand it. He does follow the career path of John Stafford, perhaps he fancied Canterbury down the line, the longevity of Bourchier must have annoyed a few? He is the sort of man the Staffords would retain, albeit unofficially, and no clergy are listed. They after all retained the best legal minds in the country and Stillington was arguably the best of the best. He could even have discussed the legality of it with Richard Cholke (it was a secular decision) and Cholke passed it on to the Staffords. Cholke conveniently died on the 5 July that year. BTW by marrying John Hampton Juliana Stillington became second cousin to Buckingham (and the King) - Hampton's grandfather was brother to Buckingham's grandmother. So that thing from Commines about Stillington wanting his children to marry royalty is not totally without foundation. Doug here: That first sentence is the crux of it, isn't it? It's the trouble I'm having with trying to discern exactly how telling Buckingham about the Pre-Contract would benefit Stillington. Not to mention the problem of when Stillington would have passed that information on. To be honest, I don't think Buckingham's actions after Edward's death were those of someone who knew Edward V was illegitimate. Although it's certainly possible I'm not giving Henry enough credit! The idea that Stillington may have talked to Cholke about a hypothetical clandestine royal marriage has possibilities, I would imagine. Just how far did the necessity to get the King's permission to marry go? For example, did the de la Poles feel the need to get Edward's permission for their marriages (if any)? I bring that up because, presuming Stillington was trying to get information from Cholke about the legal status of a clandestine royal marriage without actually mentioning the exact circumstances, would there have been anyone of royal blood available as a smokescreen? Only hinted at, of course and no names mentioned to be sure! Hilary concluded:
Finally, I think it was you who was asking how much lineage meant to the aristocracy/gentry? I mentioned Long Melford the other day. In the beautiful depictions of folk in the stained glass the men wear armour, the judges robes - and the women wear cloaks and dresses emblazoned with their family arms, in other words declaring their high breeding. You can see why a gentleman could never marry the innkeeper's daughter. Doug here: Ah yes! I was wondering why there'd be opposition to a marriage between Edward and EW and possibly none between Edward and EB. Apparently it was the status of their respective families?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham
The book is so detailed that it needs a lot of work but it is a brilliant source of hard information. I need to pay a lot more attention to Wales! The amounts don't on the surface look a lot but they were retaining dozens of these people. A name which surfaces quite a lot is that of the Berkeleys - at one stage they owed nearly £600 in rent.
Re who told who, I've tried to think what I'd do if I was Stillington and someone gave me that information in April 1483. I'd have to be very careful or I could end up in the Tower again. Would I tell Richard? I don't think so, I don't really know him; he has a closed circle of friends, and in his state of grief (Edward's death must have come as a huge blow to him) he probably wouldn't believe me or want to believe me. I don't for a moment think he'd give me a hug and say 'thanks mate I always wanted to be King'. He'd probably put me under interrogation. What about telling another friendly cleric or lawyer who I know and think would keep it confidential? That's much more likely; I need to tell someone and test it out on them. Who's friendly? Well Morton and I both worked for Henry VI and successfully changed sides. We know how to tread carefully. He'd also been confidant to MOA and he's close to MB and the Stafford family who have featured in my life and then there's my old friend Richard Cholke who's too ill to make much fuss. Just a thought.
Finally, re EB and EW yes indeed - in fact of course Elizaabeth Talbot is portrayed on those windows very much displaying her lineage. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 October 2016, 18:33
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, I'll answer what I can. There is a huge detailed chapter on the Buckingham finances but it doesn't deal with war finances because the documents are not available. The Staffords' poor financial circumstances seem to result from two main things - poor administration; pulling in the revenues, especially in Wales and the Marcher lands, was very difficult. ROY had the same problem and was not such a good administrator as the Staffords. The other thing was two long minorities, where dowagers had to be maintained but usually ended up running the estates better than their late husbands. The household expenses were enormous, there are pages and pages of estate staff, wardrobe staff, auditors, comptrollers etc. I think because of their royal descent they believed they should live like the king. And Henry Buckingham was particularly unpopular in Brecon, which had been administered efficiently by William Herbert until 1469. Doug here: One would think that amongst all those employed as auditors and comptrollers, the Staffords could have found someone trustworthy to do the same job as the Receivers ! Which would have been cheaper too; as I presume the Receivers were paid? Since documents aren't available however, it's still possible some of their debts were due to expenditures made while on campaign for which they'd never been reimbursed. Either way, I imagine that's what happens when one tries to Keep up with the Plantagenets ! Hilary continued:
As to why Stillington would tell the Staffords it really does depend on for whom he was working and what he stood to get out of it. If he had a long affinity with the family then I can indeed understand it. He does follow the career path of John Stafford, perhaps he fancied Canterbury down the line, the longevity of Bourchier must have annoyed a few? He is the sort of man the Staffords would retain, albeit unofficially, and no clergy are listed. They after all retained the best legal minds in the country and Stillington was arguably the best of the best. He could even have discussed the legality of it with Richard Cholke (it was a secular decision) and Cholke passed it on to the Staffords. Cholke conveniently died on the 5 July that year. BTW by marrying John Hampton Juliana Stillington became second cousin to Buckingham (and the King) - Hampton's grandfather was brother to Buckingham's grandmother. So that thing from Commines about Stillington wanting his children to marry royalty is not totally without foundation. Doug here: That first sentence is the crux of it, isn't it? It's the trouble I'm having with trying to discern exactly how telling Buckingham about the Pre-Contract would benefit Stillington. Not to mention the problem of when Stillington would have passed that information on. To be honest, I don't think Buckingham's actions after Edward's death were those of someone who knew Edward V was illegitimate. Although it's certainly possible I'm not giving Henry enough credit! The idea that Stillington may have talked to Cholke about a hypothetical clandestine royal marriage has possibilities, I would imagine. Just how far did the necessity to get the King's permission to marry go? For example, did the de la Poles feel the need to get Edward's permission for their marriages (if any)? I bring that up because, presuming Stillington was trying to get information from Cholke about the legal status of a clandestine royal marriage without actually mentioning the exact circumstances, would there have been anyone of royal blood available as a smokescreen? Only hinted at, of course and no names mentioned to be sure! Hilary concluded:
Finally, I think it was you who was asking how much lineage meant to the aristocracy/gentry? I mentioned Long Melford the other day. In the beautiful depictions of folk in the stained glass the men wear armour, the judges robes - and the women wear cloaks and dresses emblazoned with their family arms, in other words declaring their high breeding. You can see why a gentleman could never marry the innkeeper's daughter. Doug here: Ah yes! I was wondering why there'd be opposition to a marriage between Edward and EW and possibly none between Edward and EB. Apparently it was the status of their respective families?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
"How do we know Buckingham begged to speak to Richard? I only ask because I don't actually know. Or have forgotten. If there is any doubt over the story, I begin to wonder if someone' saw to it that Bucks' head was separated from the rest of him pdq, to silence him before he could blab to Richard. Who actually oversaw the execution?"
Carol responds:
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Carol
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016, 18:54
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Sandra responds: Hi, Carol. I've been looking at Kendall, who says that Richard reached Salisbury a day or so before Buckingham was brought there. Then: As a rebel taken in arms, he [Buckingham] was summarily tried by a commission under Sir Ralph Assheton, the Vice-Constable. Volubly the Duke of Buckingham confessed, poured out the whole story of the conspiracy, in the desperate hope of securing one favour---permission to speak with King Richard. Then Kendall suggests: It is possible that he [Buckingham] was counting upon some secret revelation to save him, perhaps a disclosure concerning the sons of Edward IV. It's a long time since I read Kendall in full I don't know if he thinks Buckingham was involved in the boy's fate. I do know that Assheton's date of death is not only unknown, but shrouded in some sort of mystery. Anyway, if he and a commission heard what Bucks had to say, where is the record? Or at least an account of some sort? I mean, if Buckingham confessed everything about the plot...? Carol said:
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016, 21:49
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Couple of things. Sir Ralph Ashton/Aston/Asscheton is indeed rumoured to have been murdered because he was so unpopular with his tenants in Ashton under Lyme. His family, from Ashton under Lyme in Lancashire, were linked through the centuries with the Stanleys, who originated from Lathom and Hooton. So sorry Richard, bad choice, even if he'd been a good soldier in the Scottish campaign! H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016, 18:54
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Sandra responds: Hi, Carol. I've been looking at Kendall, who says that Richard reached Salisbury a day or so before Buckingham was brought there. Then: As a rebel taken in arms, he [Buckingham] was summarily tried by a commission under Sir Ralph Assheton, the Vice-Constable. Volubly the Duke of Buckingham confessed, poured out the whole story of the conspiracy, in the desperate hope of securing one favour---permission to speak with King Richard. Then Kendall suggests: It is possible that he [Buckingham] was counting upon some secret revelation to save him, perhaps a disclosure concerning the sons of Edward IV. It's a long time since I read Kendall in full I don't know if he thinks Buckingham was involved in the boy's fate. I do know that Assheton's date of death is not only unknown, but shrouded in some sort of mystery. Anyway, if he and a commission heard what Bucks had to say, where is the record? Or at least an account of some sort? I mean, if Buckingham confessed everything about the plot...? Carol said:
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Ralph was reputedly very cruel, but I don't think this has anything specifically to do with supporting Richard. He held various offices under Edward and Henry VI. In fact, the actions he is famous for locally stem from a right granted to him under Henry VI, which has parallels in Scotland.
Although we don't know when he was born, if you look at the ages of his relatives he must have been quite old by Bosworth and probably died naturally. The story of his violent end may be a back construction from the treatment of his effigy.
The family must have approved of the custom, because the money came out of the manorial court. This was in the mid 1700s by which time it was the "customary black lad".
The Shaws aka Shaa were neighbours - coming from the village a couple of miles north.
The area was transformed more than many others by the Cotton industry.
Kind regardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 23 Oct 2016, 21:50:05, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote:
Couple of things. Sir Ralph Ashton/Aston/Asscheton is indeed rumoured to have been murdered because he was so unpopular with his tenants in Ashton under Lyme. His family, from Ashton under Lyme in Lancashire, were linked through the centuries with the Stanleys, who originated from Lathom and Hooton. So sorry Richard, bad choice, even if he'd been a good soldier in the Scottish campaign! H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016, 18:54
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham
and Stillington (what together?) Update
Sandra responds:
Hi, Carol. I've been looking at Kendall, who says that Richard reached Salisbury a day or so before Buckingham was brought there. Then:
As a rebel taken in arms, he [Buckingham] was summarily tried by a commission under Sir Ralph Assheton, the Vice-Constable. Volubly the Duke of Buckingham confessed, poured out the whole story of the conspiracy, in the desperate hope
of securing one favour---permission to speak with King Richard. Then Kendall suggests: It is possible that he [Buckingham] was counting upon some secret revelation to save him, perhaps a disclosure concerning the sons of Edward IV. It's a long time since
I read Kendall in full I don't know if he thinks Buckingham was involved in the boy's fate. I do know that Assheton's date of death is not only unknown, but shrouded in some sort of mystery. Anyway, if he and a commission heard what Bucks had to say, where
is the record? Or at least an account of some sort? I mean, if Buckingham confessed everything about the plot...?
Carol said:
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden
dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe
it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared
soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 24 October 2016, 17:52
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hilary,We are on home ground for me in Ashton. Incidentally it is under Lyne not Lyme. My mother's family were from there.
Ralph was reputedly very cruel, but I don't think this has anything specifically to do with supporting Richard. He held various offices under Edward and Henry VI. In fact, the actions he is famous for locally stem from a right granted to him under Henry VI, which has parallels in Scotland.
Although we don't know when he was born, if you look at the ages of his relatives he must have been quite old by Bosworth and probably died naturally. The story of his violent end may be a back construction from the treatment of his effigy.
The family must have approved of the custom, because the money came out of the manorial court. This was in the mid 1700s by which time it was the "customary black lad".
The Shaws aka Shaa were neighbours - coming from the village a couple of miles north.
The area was transformed more than many others by the Cotton industry.
Kind regardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On 23 Oct 2016, 21:50:05, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] wrote: Couple of things. Sir Ralph Ashton/Aston/Asscheton is indeed rumoured to have been murdered because he was so unpopular with his tenants in Ashton under Lyme. His family, from Ashton under Lyme in Lancashire, were linked through the centuries with the Stanleys, who originated from Lathom and Hooton. So sorry Richard, bad choice, even if he'd been a good soldier in the Scottish campaign! H
From: "Sandra Wilson sandramachin@... []"
To: ""
Sent: Sunday, 23 October 2016, 18:54
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Sandra responds: Hi, Carol. I've been looking at Kendall, who says that Richard reached Salisbury a day or so before Buckingham was brought there. Then: As a rebel taken in arms, he [Buckingham] was summarily tried by a commission under Sir Ralph Assheton, the Vice-Constable. Volubly the Duke of Buckingham confessed, poured out the whole story of the conspiracy, in the desperate hope of securing one favour---permission to speak with King Richard. Then Kendall suggests: It is possible that he [Buckingham] was counting upon some secret revelation to save him, perhaps a disclosure concerning the sons of Edward IV. It's a long time since I read Kendall in full I don't know if he thinks Buckingham was involved in the boy's fate. I do know that Assheton's date of death is not only unknown, but shrouded in some sort of mystery. Anyway, if he and a commission heard what Bucks had to say, where is the record? Or at least an account of some sort? I mean, if Buckingham confessed everything about the plot...? Carol said:
Hi, Sandra. Sorry for the delay in responding, but I expected someone else to answer. I'm not sure about Buckingham's begging to see Richard (it may be as fictitious as Buckingham's son's version of the story, which has him planning to stab Richard with a hidden dagger), but as Buckingham was Richard's Lord High Constable, the execution had to be conducted by the vice constable, Sir Ralph Assheton (or Ashton)--who BTW was pardoned by Henry VII for supporting Richard but nevertheless somehow gained a sinister reputation--maybe it was for "brutally" supporting the "tyrant" by "murdering" "innocent" people like Buckingham. He would certainly have known whether Buckingham wanted to speak with Richard, but I don't know whether he's the source of the tale. He seems to have died or disappeared soon after his pardon. For what it's worth, Lord Stanley was Buckingham's successor as constable and was still supporting Richard at the time. He might also be the source.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
a) Apparently some time in June, a clergyman, identified as Stillington only by the writings of the French diplomat Philippe de Commines (who referred to him as "ce mauvais evesque"), told Gloucester that the marriage of E4 and EW had been invalid on the grounds of... etc. etc.
b) He (de Commines) claimed that on June 8th 1483, Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, presented himself to Council providing evidence that E4 had been precontracted to another woman before marrying EW. But Simon Stallworthe, reporting the events of the Council meeting, said that nothing unusual had happened.
My questions are:
Who told de Commines about this? How was Richard told? By letter, by word of mouth? Were Stillington's revelations ever repudiated? If not, why not? Yes H8 eventually had the bigamy charges reversed and Stillington was duly dispatched to the slammer, but that's not exactly an answer to the question.
Why was Stillington so readily believed? Was it simply that Stillington was a high-placed churchman ("Trust me I'm a bishop"?), and that E4 was a known serial philanderer? Or did he have proof and/or witnesses to back up his claims, which we, or rather I, have yet to find? I can't believe that no one challenged them. We know that there was a plot against Richard over designs on the throne, but again that's another issue. I don't see any denial against the words of Stillington.
Perhaps I haven't looked in the right places yet. :-)
Alan.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
The book is so detailed that it needs a lot of work but it is a brilliant source of hard information. I need to pay a lot more attention to Wales! The amounts don't on the surface look a lot but they were retaining dozens of these people. A name which surfaces quite a lot is that of the Berkeleys - at one stage they owed nearly £600 in rent. Doug here: So it appears that there were two causes for Stafford's being in debt: overspending and under-collecting monies due. I presume employing someone by retainer would tend to cause the person retained to be considered as being in one's affinity ? Were the twenty marks a year the only money Hastings received for being Constable and Steward of Rutland, or did he also get a percentage of various fines, etc.? Hilary continued:
Re who told who, I've tried to think what I'd do if I was Stillington and someone gave me that information in April 1483. I'd have to be very careful or I could end up in the Tower again. Would I tell Richard? I don't think so, I don't really know him; he has a closed circle of friends, and in his state of grief (Edward's death must have come as a huge blow to him) he probably wouldn't believe me or want to believe me. I don't for a moment think he'd give me a hug and say 'thanks mate I always wanted to be King'. He'd probably put me under interrogation. What about telling another friendly cleric or lawyer who I know and think would keep it confidential? That's much more likely; I need to tell someone and test it out on them. Who's friendly? Well Morton and I both worked for Henry VI and successfully changed sides. We know how to tread carefully. He'd also been confidant to MOA and he's close to MB and the Stafford family who have featured in my life and then there's my old friend Richard Cholke who's too ill to make much fuss. Just a thought. Doug here: FWIW, I can't see the good Bishop telling Morton or Hastings; the first because his reputation as a Lancastrian wouldn't help Stillington in convincing others that there had been a previous marriage, while Hastings' present and future position was based almost entirely on his being absolutely necessary to Richard on the Protectorate Council. That need would diminish, if not disappear, should Richard become king. What do you think of the idea that Stillington hadn't told anyone until he'd gotten to London? Do we know when Stillington showed up in :London? For some reason, failing memory?, I have the idea that it was in late May that Stillington first told the Council and that the Council meeting that ended so fatally for Hastings was on the 13th of June. Have I got my dates confused again? Then there's that speech by Shaa at St. Paul's Cross which occurred sometime between the date IStillington presenting his evidence and Hastings' death; I presume he's related to the Shaas you've mentioned? If so, might that mean Stillington turned to Buckingham upon his (Stillington's) arrival in London? Just a thought, but it also might explain Richard's outburst about Buckingham being so false Buckingham had, basically, been the person who'd gotten Richard the throne and here he'd gone and tried to overthrow him! Hilary concluded:
Finally, re EB and EW yes indeed - in fact of course Elizaabeth Talbot is portrayed on those windows very much displaying her lineage. Doug here: I sort of thought it was more of a case of noses being put out of joint than anything else. And, of course, as EW had all those relations, that meant that many fewer positions available for others. Just call me cynical... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
Re Stillington, I like your idea about him telling Buckingham in London but I still reckon someone had tipped him off - dare I say Mr Catesby (never thought I'd say that)? There's a difference between a tip off and absolute evidence and I wonder whether Stillington, who I guess was at St Martin's in London, could provide that. I honestly don't know whether Stillington was a Yorkist or a Lancastrian or just out for himself, probably the latter. Certainly the family which his niece had married into, the Bigods, had fought for Lancaster at Towton. And Stillington had spent years being a favourite of Henry VI. I don't buy the idea that Stillington was a fragile old dodderer. He was about 60 and there were people of his age who fought at Bosworth, in fact Sir Ralph Ashton, whom we were on about yesterday was at least ten years' older and he was in the Scottish campaign. I just think that, like Elizabeth I and a lot more, illness was a marvellous excuse for getting out of doing something you didn't want to.
And your last point, a bit of both I reckon - certainly if EW and Elizabeth Talbot compared heraldic costumes EW would have to dig around a bit to get a few more emblazons. I'll upload a couple of pictures and one of Richard's 'sign' at Long Melford later in the day. They are very nice.
I'll come back to you on the Shaas. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016, 15:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, the financial records for Duke Henry's period are sparse but we have pages and pages of annuities for Duke Humphrey and Duke Edward. Since they are substantively the same families one can assume that those of our Henry are about the same. For example, John Constable of Halsham was awarded £20 a year, John Holme £2 as attorney at the Exchequer, Richard Cholke £2 a year for life for legal advice. We do have a list of Duke Henry's Councillors though and they include William Catesby (from 1450 -1485), William Fisher, Councillor to Jasper Tudor, William Hussey, the Husseys were related to Reggie Bray, Sir William Knivet (!), Richard Darell, Nicholas Latimer and John Twynyho. Where Receivers were 'farmer for the Crown' as Warwick was in Brecon, that is noted. In a lot of cases being Receiver and doing another service overlapped. BTW I've just noticed that Hastings was retained as constable and steward of Rutland for 20 marks a year by the Duchess Anne until her death in 1480 and was then her executor - interesting.
The book is so detailed that it needs a lot of work but it is a brilliant source of hard information. I need to pay a lot more attention to Wales! The amounts don't on the surface look a lot but they were retaining dozens of these people. A name which surfaces quite a lot is that of the Berkeleys - at one stage they owed nearly £600 in rent. Doug here: So it appears that there were two causes for Stafford's being in debt: overspending and under-collecting monies due. I presume employing someone by retainer would tend to cause the person retained to be considered as being in one's affinity ? Were the twenty marks a year the only money Hastings received for being Constable and Steward of Rutland, or did he also get a percentage of various fines, etc.? Hilary continued:
Re who told who, I've tried to think what I'd do if I was Stillington and someone gave me that information in April 1483. I'd have to be very careful or I could end up in the Tower again. Would I tell Richard? I don't think so, I don't really know him; he has a closed circle of friends, and in his state of grief (Edward's death must have come as a huge blow to him) he probably wouldn't believe me or want to believe me. I don't for a moment think he'd give me a hug and say 'thanks mate I always wanted to be King'. He'd probably put me under interrogation. What about telling another friendly cleric or lawyer who I know and think would keep it confidential? That's much more likely; I need to tell someone and test it out on them. Who's friendly? Well Morton and I both worked for Henry VI and successfully changed sides. We know how to tread carefully. He'd also been confidant to MOA and he's close to MB and the Stafford family who have featured in my life and then there's my old friend Richard Cholke who's too ill to make much fuss. Just a thought. Doug here: FWIW, I can't see the good Bishop telling Morton or Hastings; the first because his reputation as a Lancastrian wouldn't help Stillington in convincing others that there had been a previous marriage, while Hastings' present and future position was based almost entirely on his being absolutely necessary to Richard on the Protectorate Council. That need would diminish, if not disappear, should Richard become king. What do you think of the idea that Stillington hadn't told anyone until he'd gotten to London? Do we know when Stillington showed up in :London? For some reason, failing memory?, I have the idea that it was in late May that Stillington first told the Council and that the Council meeting that ended so fatally for Hastings was on the 13th of June. Have I got my dates confused again? Then there's that speech by Shaa at St. Paul's Cross which occurred sometime between the date IStillington presenting his evidence and Hastings' death; I presume he's related to the Shaas you've mentioned? If so, might that mean Stillington turned to Buckingham upon his (Stillington's) arrival in London? Just a thought, but it also might explain Richard's outburst about Buckingham being so false Buckingham had, basically, been the person who'd gotten Richard the throne and here he'd gone and tried to overthrow him! Hilary concluded:
Finally, re EB and EW yes indeed - in fact of course Elizaabeth Talbot is portrayed on those windows very much displaying her lineage. Doug here: I sort of thought it was more of a case of noses being put out of joint than anything else. And, of course, as EW had all those relations, that meant that many fewer positions available for others. Just call me cynical... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
From: "alan thomas alanth2521@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016, 11:24
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
I'm intrigued about Stillington's "revelation" re the pre contract. I've read two versions.
a) Apparently some time in June, a clergyman, identified as Stillington only by the writings of the French diplomat Philippe de Commines (who referred to him as "ce mauvais evesque"), told Gloucester that the marriage of E4 and EW had been invalid on the grounds of... etc. etc.
b) He (de Commines) claimed that on June 8th 1483, Robert Stillington, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, presented himself to Council providing evidence that E4 had been precontracted to another woman before marrying EW. But Simon Stallworthe, reporting the events of the Council meeting, said that nothing unusual had happened.
My questions are:
Who told de Commines about this? How was Richard told? By letter, by word of mouth? Were Stillington's revelations ever repudiated? If not, why not? Yes H8 eventually had the bigamy charges reversed and Stillington was duly dispatched to the slammer, but that's not exactly an answer to the question.
Why was Stillington so readily believed? Was it simply that Stillington was a high-placed churchman ("Trust me I'm a bishop"?), and that E4 was a known serial philanderer? Or did he have proof and/or witnesses to back up his claims, which we, or rather I, have yet to find? I can't believe that no one challenged them. We know that there was a plot against Richard over designs on the throne, but again that's another issue. I don't see any denial against the words of Stillington.
Perhaps I haven't looked in the right places yet. :-)
Alan.
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
Mary
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
"Who told de Commines about this [Stillington's revelation of the precontract]? How was Richard told? By letter, by word of mouth? Were Stillington's revelations ever repudiated? If not, why not? Yes H8 eventually had the bigamy charges reversed and Stillington was duly dispatched to the slammer, but that's not exactly an answer to the question. Why was Stillington so readily believed? Was it simply that Stillington was a high-placed churchman ("Trust me I'm a bishop"?), and that E4 was a known serial philanderer? Or did he have proof and/or witnesses to back up his claims, which we, or rather I, have yet to find? I can't believe that no one challenged them. We know that there was a plot against Richard over designs on the throne, but again that's another issue. I don't see any denial against the words of Stillington."
Carol responds:
I can't answer most of your questions, but I want to make two points. First, the plot against Richard that led to his dispatching troops from York on June 9 had nothing to do with his "designs on the throne," only with his Protectorship. Whether those "designs" had appeared by June 13, when the second plot involving Hastings, Morton, Rotherham, and perhaps Stanley, I don't know. Possibly, the suggestion that Richard take the throne had arisen (from Buckingham?) after Stillington's revelation, but plans for Edward V's coronation were still under way at that time.
Second, the reversal and suppression of Titulus Regius says nothing about bigamy or illegitimacy or anything else (except that the document is false and malicious and needs to be forgotten). Here is exactly what Henry Tudor's Titulus Regius has to say about Richard's:
"Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:
¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.
¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.
The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.
And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.
And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.
And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."
In essence, Richard, a usurper not rightfully the king of England, caused a false and malicious bill to be put before Parliament, which is now to be taken out of the Rolls of Parliament, burned, and utterly destroyed, and anyone having a copy or "remembrance" of the bill (TR) is ordered to destroy it on pain of imprisonment so that the bill (including Richard's rightful claim as well as the reasons why Edward IV's children were not the rightful heirs) will be utterly forgotten. Henry (or his Parliament) takes pains to say that nothing contained in this act (TR or the act that repels it, I'm not sure) is to be construed as hurtful to the claim of HT or his heirs, which I suppose is intended to protect him if anyone show up claiming to be Edward IV's son.
But the wording is deliberately vague to avoid repetition of the charges made in Titulus Regius (and in so doing call attention to the claims of Edward IV's children, including Henry's own future wife, Elizabeth of York).
Does Commynes actually give the date of June 8 for Stillington's revelation or is that an assumption made by some biographer based on the date of Richard's letter to York (which Commynes couldn't possibly know about)?
I've wondered if there's any connection between Commynes and Mancini, Dr. Argentine, Angelo Cato, or Cardinal Morton. He did at one point talk to Henry Tudor, but Henry could hardly have known what was happening in Richard's council (nor did any of the others, except Morton, other than by hearsay, and, of course, Morton's version of events would be biased in his own favor and against Richard).
Carol
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Yes the TR is somewhat vague. The question "Does Commynes actually give the date of June 8 for Stillington's revelation or is that an assumption made by some biographer based on the date of Richard's letter to York (which Commynes couldn't possibly know about)?" I can't answer as yet. It came from an online timeline the info of which or from where obtained I can't verify as yet. Still looking. I did say I read two accounts, not that either of them were accurate. :-)
Dr Argentine seems to be a guy who could tell a lot, but very little is known about him. I certainly wouldn't rule him out of complicity in any murder of the two princes (if indeed that is what happened). He seems to have been a Tudor man, physician to Prince Arthur. I've searched high and low for other info about him without success. According to Wiki, "Argentine's evidence was also the basis for French declarations that the Princes in the Tower of London had been murdered and their assassin crowned as King Richard III.", but what the source for this claim is I don't know as yet either.
Alan.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:20 PM, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:
Alan wrote:
"Who told de Commines about this [Stillington's revelation of the precontract]? How was Richard told? By letter, by word of mouth? Were Stillington's revelations ever repudiated? If not, why not? Yes H8 eventually had the bigamy charges reversed and Stillington was duly dispatched to the slammer, but that's not exactly an answer to the question. Why was Stillington so readily believed? Was it simply that Stillington was a high-placed churchman ("Trust me I'm a bishop"?), and that E4 was a known serial philanderer? Or did he have proof and/or witnesses to back up his claims, which we, or rather I, have yet to find? I can't believe that no one challenged them. We know that there was a plot against Richard over designs on the throne, but again that's another issue. I don't see any denial against the words of Stillington."
Carol responds:
I can't answer most of your questions, but I want to make two points. First, the plot against Richard that led to his dispatching troops from York on June 9 had nothing to do with his "designs on the throne," only with his Protectorship. Whether those "designs" had appeared by June 13, when the second plot involving Hastings, Morton, Rotherham, and perhaps Stanley, I don't know. Possibly, the suggestion that Richard take the throne had arisen (from Buckingham?) after Stillington's revelation, but plans for Edward V's coronation were still under way at that time.
Second, the reversal and suppression of Titulus Regius says nothing about bigamy or illegitimacy or anything else (except that the document is false and malicious and needs to be forgotten). Here is exactly what Henry Tudor's Titulus Regius has to say about Richard's:
"Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:
¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.
¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.
The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.
And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.
And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.
And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."
In essence, Richard, a usurper not rightfully the king of England, caused a false and malicious bill to be put before Parliament, which is now to be taken out of the Rolls of Parliament, burned, and utterly destroyed, and anyone having a copy or "remembrance" of the bill (TR) is ordered to destroy it on pain of imprisonment so that the bill (including Richard's rightful claim as well as the reasons why Edward IV's children were not the rightful heirs) will be utterly forgotten. Henry (or his Parliament) takes pains to say that nothing contained in this act (TR or the act that repels it, I'm not sure) is to be construed as hurtful to the claim of HT or his heirs, which I suppose is intended to protect him if anyone show up claiming to be Edward IV's son.
But the wording is deliberately vague to avoid repetition of the charges made in Titulus Regius (and in so doing call attention to the claims of Edward IV's children, including Henry's own future wife, Elizabeth of York).
Does Commynes actually give the date of June 8 for Stillington's revelation or is that an assumption made by some biographer based on the date of Richard's letter to York (which Commynes couldn't possibly know about)?
I've wondered if there's any connection between Commynes and Mancini, Dr. Argentine, Angelo Cato, or Cardinal Morton. He did at one point talk to Henry Tudor, but Henry could hardly have known what was happening in Richard's council (nor did any of the others, except Morton, other than by hearsay, and, of course, Morton's version of events would be biased in his own favor and against Richard).
Carol
Re: Buckingham and Stillington (what together?) Update
Al.
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 4:59 AM, alan thomas <alanth2521@...> wrote:
Thanks to both Hilary and Carol for your replies.
Yes the TR is somewhat vague. The question "Does Commynes actually give the date of June 8 for Stillington's revelation or is that an assumption made by some biographer based on the date of Richard's letter to York (which Commynes couldn't possibly know about)?" I can't answer as yet. It came from an online timeline the info of which or from where obtained I can't verify as yet. Still looking. I did say I read two accounts, not that either of them were accurate. :-)
Dr Argentine seems to be a guy who could tell a lot, but very little is known about him. I certainly wouldn't rule him out of complicity in any murder of the two princes (if indeed that is what happened). He seems to have been a Tudor man, physician to Prince Arthur. I've searched high and low for other info about him without success. According to Wiki, "Argentine's evidence was also the basis for French declarations that the Princes in the Tower of London had been murdered and their assassin crowned as King Richard III.", but what the source for this claim is I don't know as yet either.
Alan.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:20 PM, justcarol67@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Alan wrote:
"Who told de Commines about this [Stillington's revelation of the precontract]? How was Richard told? By letter, by word of mouth? Were Stillington's revelations ever repudiated? If not, why not? Yes H8 eventually had the bigamy charges reversed and Stillington was duly dispatched to the slammer, but that's not exactly an answer to the question. Why was Stillington so readily believed? Was it simply that Stillington was a high-placed churchman ("Trust me I'm a bishop"?), and that E4 was a known serial philanderer? Or did he have proof and/or witnesses to back up his claims, which we, or rather I, have yet to find? I can't believe that no one challenged them. We know that there was a plot against Richard over designs on the throne, but again that's another issue. I don't see any denial against the words of Stillington."
Carol responds:
I can't answer most of your questions, but I want to make two points. First, the plot against Richard that led to his dispatching troops from York on June 9 had nothing to do with his "designs on the throne," only with his Protectorship. Whether those "designs" had appeared by June 13, when the second plot involving Hastings, Morton, Rotherham, and perhaps Stanley, I don't know. Possibly, the suggestion that Richard take the throne had arisen (from Buckingham?) after Stillington's revelation, but plans for Edward V's coronation were still under way at that time.
Second, the reversal and suppression of Titulus Regius says nothing about bigamy or illegitimacy or anything else (except that the document is false and malicious and needs to be forgotten). Here is exactly what Henry Tudor's Titulus Regius has to say about Richard's:
"Where afore this tyme, Richard, late Duke of Glouc', and after in dede and not of right King of England, called Richard the IIId, caused a false and seditious Bille of false and malicious ymaginacones, ayenst all good and true disposicion, to be put unto hyme, the beginning of which Bill is thus:
¶ Please it youre noble Grace to understand the Considerac`ons, Ellecc`on and Petic`on under written, &c.
¶ Which Bille, after that, with all the continue of the same, by auctoritee of Parliament, holden the first yeere of the usurped Reigne of the said late King Richard IIId, was ratified, enrolled, recorded, approved and authorised; as in the same more plainly appeareth.
The King, atte the speciall instance, desire and prayer of the Lordes Spirituell and Temporell, and Comons, in the psent Parlement assembled, woll it be ordeined, stablished and enacted, by the advys of the said Lordes Spuell and Temporell, and the Comunes, in this present Parlement assembled, and by auctoritee of the same, that the said Bill, Acte and Ratificacion, and all the circumstances and dependants of the same Bill and Acte, for the false and seditious ymaginac`ons and untrouths thereof, be void, adnulled, repelled, irrite, and of noe force ne effecte.
And that it be ordeined by the said auctoritee, that the said Bill be cancelled, destrued, and that the said Acte, Record and enrollinge, shall be taken and avoided out of the Roll and Records of the said Parliament of the said late King, and brente, and utterly destroyed.
And over this, be it ordeined by the same auctoritee, that every p1soune haveing anie Coppie or Remembraunces of the said Bill or Acte, bring unto the Chaunceller of England for the tyme being, the same Coppies and Remembraunces, or utterlie destrue theym, afore the Fest of Easter next comen, upon Peine of ymprissonment, and makeing fyne and ransome to the Kinge atte his will.
So that all thinges said and remembred in the said Bill and Acte thereof maie be for ever out of remembraunce, and allso forgott.
And over thys, be it ordeined and enacted by the said auctoritee, that thys Acte, ne any thing conteined in the same, be anie way hurtfull or prejudiciall to the Acte of stablishment of the Croune of England to the Kinge and to the Heyres of hys body begotten."
In essence, Richard, a usurper not rightfully the king of England, caused a false and malicious bill to be put before Parliament, which is now to be taken out of the Rolls of Parliament, burned, and utterly destroyed, and anyone having a copy or "remembrance" of the bill (TR) is ordered to destroy it on pain of imprisonment so that the bill (including Richard's rightful claim as well as the reasons why Edward IV's children were not the rightful heirs) will be utterly forgotten. Henry (or his Parliament) takes pains to say that nothing contained in this act (TR or the act that repels it, I'm not sure) is to be construed as hurtful to the claim of HT or his heirs, which I suppose is intended to protect him if anyone show up claiming to be Edward IV's son.
But the wording is deliberately vague to avoid repetition of the charges made in Titulus Regius (and in so doing call attention to the claims of Edward IV's children, including Henry's own future wife, Elizabeth of York).
Does Commynes actually give the date of June 8 for Stillington's revelation or is that an assumption made by some biographer based on the date of Richard's letter to York (which Commynes couldn't possibly know about)?
I've wondered if there's any connection between Commynes and Mancini, Dr. Argentine, Angelo Cato, or Cardinal Morton. He did at one point talk to Henry Tudor, but Henry could hardly have known what was happening in Richard's council (nor did any of the others, except Morton, other than by hearsay, and, of course, Morton's version of events would be biased in his own favor and against Richard).
Carol
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
Altough Mottram is in Cheshire in the past it bordered the county of Lancashire (or Lancaster as it was more correctly named). As the Industrial Revolution transformed the area, a new township of Stalybridge grew up around the bridge that was the county boundary.
The history of Lancashire tells us that the name Shaw was first encountered in 1370 with a landowner in the village of Shaw near Oldham. This is quite close to Mottram.
The local council has been quite busy and has put up a blue plaque.
Blue Plaque - Sir Edmund Shaa
Blue Plaque - Sir Edmund Shaa
A Tribute to Sir Edmund Shaa - A Blue Plaque on Church Brow in Mottram in Longdendale celebrates the life of Sir Edmund Shaa. It was unveiled in March 1994 by Councillor Roy Oldham.
Interestingly, in the 18th century, a later Sir Ralph Assheton was a landowner and church trustee in the village of Shaw - land held of the Earl of Derby.
A number of my ancestors will have been through the church in Mottram.
Kind regardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016, 13:53, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:
Just had a thought didn't the Shaas come from Mottram, which I think is in Cheshire? My son in law's father lived in Mottram and I seem to remember him telling me because he knew that I was interested in R3. He was a member of the Church in Mottram and did a lot of family history research for them as they frequently had people contacting them and asking about ancestors from Mottram. Sadly he died a couple of years ago so I am not able to ask him.
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
Mary
Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo
Mary
