Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-22 12:06:48
hjnatdat

Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.


Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth.


Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter?


This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Philip Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser?


We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we?


If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?


Sorry this is so long H

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-22 13:42:30
ricard1an
Family connections have a lot to tell us.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-22 18:21:47
Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote:

Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth.

Doug here:

What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though.

Hilary continued:

Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter?

This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser?

Doug here:

Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.

Hilary continued:

We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we?

Doug here:

Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp?

As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'.

Hilary concluded:

If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long 

Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-23 10:07:12
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-23 16:05:58
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
This will teach me to ask questions!
Still, thank you for all the information! While it'll likely take a take a bit of time to digest it all, I wonder what you think of the idea that Stillington may have sold the idea of Hampton marrying Juliana as giving Hampton a friend at Court should there ever be any, um, problems with George? If Hampton was married to the daughter, illegitimate or not, of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and presuming of course Stillington stayed in Edward's good graces, should any disputes arise between George, Duke of Clarence and John Hampton, well-to-do landowner (would Hampton have rated even an Esq.?), then there'd be someone at Court on Hampton's side. What do you think of that idea of mine that Hampton, by marrying Juliana, may have considered that whatever he lost by not strengthening local affinities by marriage, he also hadn't strengthened any local animosities, also by marriage?
Doug
Who's left your entire post in my in-basket for the present so I can nibble away at it!

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



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-23 23:12:32
daviddurose2000
Hilary Another fascinating post that mentions one of the probable Breton families that I knew about. Gower - erroneously linked to a place near Paris is more likely de Guer. Guer apparently was an apanage granted to the cadets of the house of de Malestroit. By coincidence, the family de Malestroit built the castle of Largöet and its Tower of Elven, where Henry Tudor was accommodated. By then the castle had passed by marriage to Jean IV de Rieux, one of the key players of the period.
The Gowers were settled before the Conquest.
As an as side, I find John Morton's coat of arms intriguing - the ermine is often a sign of Breton descent, but I have not found a link.
Regards David
On 23 Jun 2017 10:01 a.m., "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-24 08:51:01
Hilary Jones
Doug. Many, many apologies for the long earlier email - I couldn't paste a link so I had to copy it.
The reason I love this forum is that so many minds coming up with varied solutions is much better than one person trying to sort it out. It's very easy to go into a research tunnel. Oh that all authors submitted their work to this forum for scrutiny!
On a broader base I think I'm creeping towards a suspicion that George did know about the Pre Contract and therefore had to go. Who told who? Did Stillington tell Warwick (plotting at this time with George) or did Anne Beauchamp (Eleanor's aunt) tell them all? And when did Edward find out that George knew? Not till after 1475 methinks?
Anne Beauchamp's participation in all this explains why Stillington would support Lambert Simnel (i.e. Warwick). After her husband's death she of all had the most to gain. A Beauchamp grandson on the throne would go some way to compensate for the loss of her lands.
I don't think we can disregard a Stillington/Neville pact. His family is in the Neville affinity. And, incidentally, the original ancestor/possessor of the Bytton lands was a Neville. Somewhere in this is the Neville bid to regain their lands in the West Country. H


From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 16:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Hilary,
This will teach me to ask questions!
Still, thank you for all the information! While it'll likely take a take a bit of time to digest it all, I wonder what you think of the idea that Stillington may have sold the idea of Hampton marrying Juliana as giving Hampton a friend at Court should there ever be any, um, problems with George? If Hampton was married to the daughter, illegitimate or not, of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and presuming of course Stillington stayed in Edward's good graces, should any disputes arise between George, Duke of Clarence and John Hampton, well-to-do landowner (would Hampton have rated even an Esq.?), then there'd be someone at Court on Hampton's side. What do you think of that idea of mine that Hampton, by marrying Juliana, may have considered that whatever he lost by not strengthening local affinities by marriage, he also hadn't strengthened any local animosities, also by marriage?
Doug
Who's left your entire post in my in-basket for the present so I can nibble away at it!

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





Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-24 08:57:19
Hilary Jones
Thanks David, I'm working on this. Interestingly, the Mortons seem to have originated in Yorkshire and then moved south via Nottingham. I find that a lot of these Breton links come via marriage with a 'gateway' ancestor. But I think it would have been something of which people were very much aware and the tradition is carried via names. In Yorkshire I've traced quite a few but, for example, I haven't traced the Askes. Yet with a prevalence of Conans and Johns you can bet Breton ancestry is there somewhere. As you know, it's complex. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 23:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary Another fascinating post that mentions one of the probable Breton families that I knew about. Gower - erroneously linked to a place near Paris is more likely de Guer. Guer apparently was an apanage granted to the cadets of the house of de Malestroit. By coincidence, the family de Malestroit built the castle of Largöet and its Tower of Elven, where Henry Tudor was accommodated. By then the castle had passed by marriage to Jean IV de Rieux, one of the key players of the period.
The Gowers were settled before the Conquest.
As an as side, I find John Morton's coat of arms intriguing - the ermine is often a sign of Breton descent, but I have not found a link.
Regards David
On 23 Jun 2017 10:01 a.m., "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-24 10:27:45
ricard1an
Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that. My niece has recently had her DNA checked by Ancestry and it comes up 53% Irish Celtic but from my researches into our side of the family we don't have any Irish ancestry and her father's family were from Norfolk and that would account for the Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian parts of her DNA.
What I think I am trying to get at is that it isn't Irish Celtic but just Celtic and that it is our Celtic roots that connect us to Brittany. There is of course the Gower Peninsular in Wales and that's where one of my Gower families hail from and the other from nearby Carmarthenshire. Also do you remember Sir Matthew Craddock who was the Steward of Gower though I think part of his family came from Pembrokeshire?
Mary

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

2017-06-24 13:57:25
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
Hilary, this was a fascinating post, as is the question of who knew what and when. Clarence doesn't strike me as the discreet type. My suspicion is that at least Isabel, Warwick and Anne Beauchamp knew at an early stage, but were cautious about who else knew. I'm not sure about Cecily and Anne Neville. There seems to be a belief that Cecily and George were close, and he was her favourite son, but is there any actual contemporary evidence for this, or is it just a staple of fiction? If they were close, then I think he would have told her. If she knew by 1470 and didn't warn Edward, then that would indicate a clearly partisan leaning towards George and Warwick. Would she have preferred a George and Warwick dominated monarchy to Edward and the Woodvilles? Possibly, since she was a Neville and Warwick's aunt. As for Anne Neville, she would have been a bit young, but Isabel and Anne Beauchamp would most likely have told her later. If she knew, then Richard probably heard about it too, but dismissed it because there was no proof. Maybe he asked Edward if was true, and Edward lied, and Richard believed him until Stillington came forward years later. Over the years, a number of other significant people may also have known, which may have been why Stillington's story was so readily accepted by parliament.

Nico


On Saturday, 24 June 2017, 8:51, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


Doug. Many, many apologies for the long earlier email - I couldn't paste a link so I had to copy it.
The reason I love this forum is that so many minds coming up with varied solutions is much better than one person trying to sort it out. It's very easy to go into a research tunnel. Oh that all authors submitted their work to this forum for scrutiny!
On a broader base I think I'm creeping towards a suspicion that George did know about the Pre Contract and therefore had to go. Who told who? Did Stillington tell Warwick (plotting at this time with George) or did Anne Beauchamp (Eleanor's aunt) tell them all? And when did Edward find out that George knew? Not till after 1475 methinks?
Anne Beauchamp's participation in all this explains why Stillington would support Lambert Simnel (i.e. Warwick). After her husband's death she of all had the most to gain. A Beauchamp grandson on the throne would go some way to compensate for the loss of her lands.
I don't think we can disregard a Stillington/Neville pact. His family is in the Neville affinity. And, incidentally, the original ancestor/possessor of the Bytton lands was a Neville. Somewhere in this is the Neville bid to regain their lands in the West Country. H


From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 16:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Hilary,
This will teach me to ask questions!
Still, thank you for all the information! While it'll likely take a take a bit of time to digest it all, I wonder what you think of the idea that Stillington may have sold the idea of Hampton marrying Juliana as giving Hampton a friend at Court should there ever be any, um, problems with George? If Hampton was married to the daughter, illegitimate or not, of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and presuming of course Stillington stayed in Edward's good graces, should any disputes arise between George, Duke of Clarence and John Hampton, well-to-do landowner (would Hampton have rated even an Esq.?), then there'd be someone at Court on Hampton's side. What do you think of that idea of mine that Hampton, by marrying Juliana, may have considered that whatever he lost by not strengthening local affinities by marriage, he also hadn't strengthened any local animosities, also by marriage?
Doug
Who's left your entire post in my in-basket for the present so I can nibble away at it!

--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-24 14:33:04
ricard1an
Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-24 14:39:12
Pamela Bain
Lots of standing stones in Brittany, and many finds of Celtic settlements in many areas of France and Spain.
On Jun 24, 2017, at 4:27 AM, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that. My niece has recently had her DNA checked by Ancestry and it comes up 53% Irish Celtic but from my researches into our side of the family we don't have any Irish ancestry and her father's family were from Norfolk and that would account for the Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian parts of her DNA.


What I think I am trying to get at is that it isn't Irish Celtic but just Celtic and that it is our Celtic roots that connect us to Brittany. There is of course the Gower Peninsular in Wales and that's where one of my Gower families hail from and the other from nearby Carmarthenshire. Also do you remember Sir Matthew Craddock who was the Steward of Gower though I think part of his family came from Pembrokeshire?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-24 22:00:17
mariewalsh2003

Mary wrote:

Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that.


Marie:

The Irish Celts almost certainly reached Ireland directly from Spain, as their own legends suggest. The Irish language belongs to a different branch than Welsh and Breton.

The close connection between Wales and Brittany is that both are places where the Britons fetched up after the Saxon invasions (same goes for Cornwall). That is why their languages are so similar, and that is why Brittany is called Brittany. Used to be known as Little Britain, in contrast to Great Britain.

And the Cornish connection explains why one of the provinces of Brittany is called Cornouaille.





Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-25 09:33:46
Hilary Jones
Yes I do indeed Mary - still trying to fit him in with the Craddock-Newtons!
Your point about Thomas Gower of Settringham is interesting since he is also part if that inner circle round Richard that was inherited from Warwick. He of course died with him at Bosworth. There's something in this I can't quite put my finger on; or we have a far more prolific Celtic population than we thought? That's why these discussions are very useful. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2017, 10:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary something that has occurred to me, and it may or may not be relevant, there is a connection between Brittany and Wales for example similarities between their languages. David's post about the de Guer/ Gower families made me think about it. There were the Gowers of Settringham in Yorkshire who fought for Richard at Bosworth but there are Welsh Gower families too. I have Gowers on both sides of my family tree. Not long ago I saw a programme about the Celts and some research that was done suggested that the Celts had originally come from Spain into Cornwall and Wales and from there to Ireland. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to think that they also went to Brittany too and that the connection between Wales and Brittany stems from that. My niece has recently had her DNA checked by Ancestry and it comes up 53% Irish Celtic but from my researches into our side of the family we don't have any Irish ancestry and her father's family were from Norfolk and that would account for the Anglo Saxon and Scandinavian parts of her DNA.
What I think I am trying to get at is that it isn't Irish Celtic but just Celtic and that it is our Celtic roots that connect us to Brittany. There is of course the Gower Peninsular in Wales and that's where one of my Gower families hail from and the other from nearby Carmarthenshire. Also do you remember Sir Matthew Craddock who was the Steward of Gower though I think part of his family came from Pembrokeshire?
Mary

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

2017-06-25 10:03:20
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico I agree with most of your post.
I don't think Richard knew- his actions in 1483 were one of complete shock. This is how I'm beginning to see it.
If Anne Beauchamp told her husband and George it would be about the time of them planning to rebel - Jun/July 1467 or later atended the funeral of her half-sister Margaret Talbot and been reconciled with her nieces. If Stillington told them in order to cadge a good marriage for Juliana it would be about the same time. The knowledge is actually useless at the time (they dontnt Edward to marry EW) but marvellous for an opportune time in future.
Leap forward, and with the death of George, Edward thinks he's completely safe. He's put the frighteners on the Bishop (who doesn't have any immediate rebels to give his info to anyway) and being Edward, he's discounted Anne Beauchamp as a batty old woman (in Richard's custody) and Richard himself as the true heir to the throne, because who would chose serious, hard-working, physically fragile, dull Richard, over someone like himself (Edward's thoughts, not mine)? There is one other person who knows; that's Will Hastings. He knows everything about Edward. Fearing the Woodvilles could cause trouble when he dies (over wishing to control the new king) Edward makes Hastings promise to remain loyal to young Edward and of course Hastings will have sworn never to reveal the Pre-Contract.
Spring 1483. Hastings acts in just the way Edward has asked him to. Noting the actions of the Woodvilles, Hastings sends for Richard who gets rid of the traitors and pledges allegiance to the young king. And then Stillington steps forward, probably egged on by Anne Beauchamp - she could even have offered to support his school at Acaster. Hastings has immediately commited treason; he's encouraged Richard to endorse a king who has no claim to the throne, and he, Hastings, knew that.The question is who told Richard about his prior knowledge? I'll leave that for another day.
But it explains Richard's actions. Firstly the horror that Hastings could commit treason and mislead him, but also secondly his deep regrets, because in doing this Hastings was obeying another King whom they had both loved and obeyed for so long. Just my thoughts H
(the third sentence should read 'after Jun 1467 and when no doubt they were planning to rebel' Sorry for some reason it won't let me alter.


From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 24 June 2017, 13:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi,
Hilary, this was a fascinating post, as is the question of who knew what and when. Clarence doesn't strike me as the discreet type. My suspicion is that at least Isabel, Warwick and Anne Beauchamp knew at an early stage, but were cautious about who else knew. I'm not sure about Cecily and Anne Neville. There seems to be a belief that Cecily and George were close, and he was her favourite son, but is there any actual contemporary evidence for this, or is it just a staple of fiction? If they were close, then I think he would have told her. If she knew by 1470 and didn't warn Edward, then that would indicate a clearly partisan leaning towards George and Warwick. Would she have preferred a George and Warwick dominated monarchy to Edward and the Woodvilles? Possibly, since she was a Neville and Warwick's aunt. As for Anne Neville, she would have been a bit young, but Isabel and Anne Beauchamp would most likely have told her later. If she knew, then Richard probably heard about it too, but dismissed it because there was no proof. Maybe he asked Edward if was true, and Edward lied, and Richard believed him until Stillington came forward years later. Over the years, a number of other significant people may also have known, which may have been why Stillington's story was so readily accepted by parliament.

Nico


On Saturday, 24 June 2017, 8:51, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:


Doug. Many, many apologies for the long earlier email - I couldn't paste a link so I had to copy it.
The reason I love this forum is that so many minds coming up with varied solutions is much better than one person trying to sort it out. It's very easy to go into a research tunnel. Oh that all authors submitted their work to this forum for scrutiny!
On a broader base I think I'm creeping towards a suspicion that George did know about the Pre Contract and therefore had to go. Who told who? Did Stillington tell Warwick (plotting at this time with George) or did Anne Beauchamp (Eleanor's aunt) tell them all? And when did Edward find out that George knew? Not till after 1475 methinks?
Anne Beauchamp's participation in all this explains why Stillington would support Lambert Simnel (i.e. Warwick). After her husband's death she of all had the most to gain. A Beauchamp grandson on the throne would go some way to compensate for the loss of her lands.
I don't think we can disregard a Stillington/Neville pact. His family is in the Neville affinity. And, incidentally, the original ancestor/possessor of the Bytton lands was a Neville. Somewhere in this is the Neville bid to regain their lands in the West Country. H


From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 16:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Hilary,
This will teach me to ask questions!
Still, thank you for all the information! While it'll likely take a take a bit of time to digest it all, I wonder what you think of the idea that Stillington may have sold the idea of Hampton marrying Juliana as giving Hampton a friend at Court should there ever be any, um, problems with George? If Hampton was married to the daughter, illegitimate or not, of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and presuming of course Stillington stayed in Edward's good graces, should any disputes arise between George, Duke of Clarence and John Hampton, well-to-do landowner (would Hampton have rated even an Esq.?), then there'd be someone at Court on Hampton's side. What do you think of that idea of mine that Hampton, by marrying Juliana, may have considered that whatever he lost by not strengthening local affinities by marriage, he also hadn't strengthened any local animosities, also by marriage?
Doug
Who's left your entire post in my in-basket for the present so I can nibble away at it!

--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-25 13:23:34
ricard1an
Just some thoughts on Nico's post about Cecily and George. If I remember rightly Cecily was not very happy about Edward marrying EW hence the not your father's son comment. Richard Duke of York would never have done what Edward did, neither for that matter, in my opinion, would Richard or even George. What if Cecily told Richard and had sent Stillington to him to confirm what she had said. I have no doubt that Cecily loved all her sons but she would probably been very much aware of Canon Law and also would not want a "Woodville" on the throne when he had absolutely no legal right to be there. She was probably distraught after George's execution and then when Edward died she could see very clearly that a Woodville controlled young King would not do the country or the rest of her family any good. Just thoughts as there is absolutely no evidence to support this.
Mary

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

2017-06-25 19:35:33
romanenemo
What is the source for that comment Cecily is supposed to have made about Edward not being the Duke of York's son ? Is it reliable, or is it likely to be Tudor propaganda ? Cecily was known to be a very proud and pious woman. Would she have had an affair with a commoner ?Romane

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

2017-06-25 19:53:55
b.eileen25
If Cicely did make this statement she may not have meant it literally - she was in a rage - she may have said something along the lines of 'your no son of mine/your fathers' in the heat of the moment. She was right to be enraged of course as things transpired. Prof Ross described the Woodville marriage as an 'impulsive love match of an impulsive young man'. It was the beginning of the end of the Plantagenets..

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

2017-06-25 20:24:30
ricard1an
Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have meant that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 08:36:45
romanenemo
When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe.Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII.Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true.
Romane


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

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have meant that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 09:18:02
Hilary Jones
I agree. A few years' ago I did quite a bit of research on the Warwick rebellion period though I was less discerning in my reading (and there was less material about).
As I recall, Warwick was Cis's favourite nephew and a favourite of King Louis too. The two negotiated the Bona of Savoy marriage together and both were more than miffed at the Woodville marriage. Cis quietly approved of the George/Isabel match - Isabel was her god-daughter and she made a sort of Lady Catherine de Burgh visit to them at Sandwich before they embarked on the dreadful voyage where Isabel lost her baby. Incidentally that must have traumatised all three young people, Anne was 13/14 at the time.
Cis pleaded with Edward to do a deal with Warwick when he was holed up in Coventry before Barnet but Warwick refused. She also intervened on behalf of George - so could indeed have met Dr Stillington. If there was a special relationship I would say it was between Margaret and George - she dedicated a book on Chess to him. But Cis was certainly aware of how the Woodville marriage damaged the HOY - and she lost influence with Edward herself.
Also she was a good friend of Anne Beauchamp, who was her social superior by birth. This is where I reckon Philippa Gregory's book got it wrong on the women front. The real power was with quite different people. H (who apologises in advance if some of this is inaccurate - my guess is a lot of it came from PMK)

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 25 June 2017, 19:53
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

If Cicely did make this statement she may not have meant it literally - she was in a rage - she may have said something along the lines of 'your no son of mine/your fathers' in the heat of the moment. She was right to be enraged of course as things transpired. Prof Ross described the Woodville marriage as an 'impulsive love match of an impulsive young man'. It was the beginning of the end of the Plantagenets..

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

2017-06-26 09:26:06
Hilary Jones
Just as we regret the loss of Hastings later, I think it's difficult to underestimate the loss of Warwick to the HOY. He was a good foreign negotiator, a brilliant sailor and a much more reliable supporter than Charles the Bold. Trouble was, two charismatic people have a job to occupy the same space.
Re the EW marriage, as I've said before, people in the Middle Ages did things in a particular way, it ensured the whole ordered fabric of society. When a king deviated from the main as much as Edward did it was bound to bring disaster. It was just a question of when. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 8:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe.Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII.Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true.
Romane


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

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have meant that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 09:46:37
ricard1an
I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 10:37:24
b.eileen25
As Anne Sutton said at the Trial of Richard lll the Wydeville marriage was the 'cruxt' of the matter. This led to complete and utter disaster for the Yorkists and the deaths of hundreds of Richard's loyal subjects. It caused the rift between Warwick and Edward - Warwick's anger is completely understandible - to whatever fates befell his sons - and finally the death of Richard, annointed king, and many of his followers. Not only was it a disaster it was a tragedy.
Clarence's death can be added to that list as well as it could be that he found out about the Talbot marriage and with all the ramifications that would bring he had to be outed.

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

2017-06-26 10:51:56
b.eileen25
Good point Mary...and you may be right there..but imho Edward married Elizabeth merely because he desired her sexually. He acted in the same way with Eleanor - and it would appear that when he got what he wanted he dropped her like a hot potato. Elizabeth was cleverer/slyer than Eleanor though - and he may well have fallen in love with her - but what on earth was he thinking of?
Not only that he then went on to making a bad situation even worse by empowering the Woodvilles beyond their wildest dreams. What a dipstick!

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

2017-06-26 11:27:51
Nicholas Brown
Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 11:58:27
b.eileen25
Good post Nico and yes its important we should remember Edward's age at the time..20ish? He must have been giddy with his successes..overnight became king with all the power/adulation that brings..too much..too soon. I dont think we need look deeply into why he behaved how he did..its all very basic human stuff..He is King, ergo he can do what he damn well likes..and he did just that.

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

2017-06-26 12:08:27
Nicholas Brown
Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary



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

2017-06-26 12:09:19
Karen O
   Agreed that he "married"EW because he could not risk marriage to Bona of Savoy. I think he gave up Eleanor because she did not conceive.     This leads me to another question. When Stllington made his revelation, we are told that witnesses were deposed and proofs offered. This was a very short period of time. I find this hard to believe. Was the decision made then entirely in Stllington s testimony?   Also, once the charge was out it might have seemed better politically to choose Richard than a child if a dubious marriage.
On Jun 26, 2017 3:36 AM, "romanenemo" <[email protected]> wrote:
 

When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe.Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII.Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true. 
Romane


---In @ yahoogroups.com, <maryfriend@...> wrote :

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have  meant that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 12:59:07
b.eileen25
Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.

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

2017-06-26 13:00:42
b.eileen25
Re my last comment..it may have been JAH's Private Life of Edward or his book on Clarence. I will take a look when I get the chance.

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

2017-06-26 13:31:00
Karen O
I read somewhere that members of her family were non too savoury and poisoning suspicions swirled around them. Which makes me wonder what she was hired for.
On Jun 26, 2017 7:59 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 

Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe.  I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward.  I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.  

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

2017-06-26 14:03:43
Hilary Jones
Your last point's very interesting, Nico. Edward certainly side-lined Cis and she was 'proud Cis'. It's ironic that although EW's picture sits in Queens, it's Richard that they love. They even have his boar motto on the paper napkins they use every day. They hate HT with a vengeance for taking Richard's funding away. Pity we can't find that portrait of Anne to replace it. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary



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

2017-06-26 14:07:08
Hilary Jones
Agree Eileen and, unfortunately as Ross says, he could never pull himself above being a member of the nobility and playing their land power games. That too cost him dearly down the line. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Good post Nico and yes its important we should remember Edward's age at the time..20ish? He must have been giddy with his successes..overnight became king with all the power/adulation that brings..too much..too soon. I dont think we need look deeply into why he behaved how he did..its all very basic human stuff..He is King, ergo he can do what he damn well likes..and he did just that.

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

2017-06-26 14:10:43
Hilary Jones
Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary





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

2017-06-26 14:14:56
Hilary Jones
I agree, agree Eileen. I think the whole Clarence thing was a setup, but proving it and by whom? The Twynyhos are deep in the Somerset/Stillington gang (but I don't think it was Stillington, much too risky). Could the hand of Edward be behind this? After all, at least one of these Somerset folk (Gorges) was a Squire of the Body.
And John Twynyho fought for HT at Bosworth. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 13:01
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.

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

2017-06-26 15:23:01
ricard1an
I suppose we do forget that he was quite young and all the responsibility that he took on. He needed someone like Warwick to be his mentor but if he was arrogant, as young men sometimes are at that age, then he would do as he liked because he was the King. I am starting to feel sorry for Warwick now, though I can't forgive him for committing treason and making Anne marry E OF L.
Mary

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

2017-06-26 15:53:34
b.eileen25
Although I do agree with you Mary to a certain extent, on the other hand I do not blame Warwick for the way he acted per se. How much of his life, spent in the saddle and hardships he endured for the Yorkists to be treated like that by Edward. And then the upstarts woodvilles...all the loyalty thrown back in his face. it must have been intolerable. I too don't like the way he joined forces with the lancastrians and the marrying off of Anne. Add to the equation he knew or guessed about EB and it pretty toxic. I guess you have to walk a mile in anyone shoes to appreciate how they feel and th decisions they were led to. But it was a sorry day that Edward treated Warwick in such a cavalier manner which led to Warwick's death because his death was a great loss to the Yorkists as was Hastings. Don't you just always get a whiff of Woodvilles machinations behind every wrong turn Edward made.

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

2017-06-26 16:28:32
b.eileen25
HIlary I know you share my more tolerant attitude towards George who has a somewhat tarnished reputation but I'm not convinced, Something popped into my head the other day.,where does this drunken reputation come from. Did anyone of the time mention it, Croyland, Mancini, etc., ?

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

2017-06-26 16:44:02
Karen O
Who hates HT with a passion?
On Jun 26, 2017 9:03 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Your last point's very interesting, Nico. Edward certainly side-lined Cis and she was 'proud Cis'. It's ironic that although EW's picture sits in Queens, it's Richard that they love. They even have his boar motto on the paper napkins they use every day. They hate HT with a vengeance for taking Richard's funding away. Pity we can't find that portrait of Anne to replace it. H  

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did.  I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona.  However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him.  However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer.  He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops.   Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly?  This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt.  If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question.  There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time.  May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date.  However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.)  It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her.  However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual.  The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in.  There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


  I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary




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

2017-06-26 17:07:07
b.eileen25
What a thought provoking question.
I dont know if 'hate' is the right word for what I feel for HT. I despise him that for sure. Is that worse than hate.
Funnily enough I feel something akin to hate towards the Stanleys, MB and Morton because the Weasle would never had got there if it had not been for their input.
Detest EW..with some pity..as she paid a big price for her crap.
Dislike..thats not so strong as hate....dislike Elizabeth of York, Jane/Elizabeth Shore, Catesby, Edward IV

Admire John Howard Duke of York, Warwick, Cicely Neville, Richard Duke of York.
Like George Duke of Clarence.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-26 17:15:45
romanenemo

Nico :

As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Romane :

I think that Richard knew nothing before Stiligton's revelation, for it seems that he was genuinely planning to crown his nephew in the beginning. But I agree, he was certainly devastated. It's obvious that he was completely devoted to Edward in his youth. Then, maybe, they might have somehow drifted apart, being so different and living so far from each other. But to discover that Edward had lied to him that much was certainly terrible for him. Or so it seems, considering how harshly his once beloved brother's reign is criticized in the Titulus Regius and in some other of Richard's proclamations as a king. All these passages about Edward's bad counselors, encouraging his debauched ways, about the complete lack of moral and order during Edward's reign& Was it really necessary in order to convince people of Richard's right to rule ? He was the rightful king because one of his nephew was a bastard and the other was attainted. Not because Edward had been a bad ruler. But maybe this is Richard' s way of venting his bitter disappointment in his deceitful and irresponsible brother.

And deceitful and irresponsible he was. Even without the pre-contract story, the country was apparently on the brink of civil war at Edward's death, with the Woodvilles' attempt to seize all the power, and magnates such as Hastings set on preventing them to do so, because they were upstarts. I suspect that in spite of Mancini'as account, most of the people was very relieved by the idea of Richard as they new king.

Nico :

Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly?

Romane :

Indeed. Had Edward thought of freeing himself from this second marriage as well ? Horspool quotes a letter for John Howard to Lord Rivers, saying that the people and the lords were very dissatisfied of the marriage and that « for the sake of finding means to annul it, all the nobles are holding great consultations in the town of Reading, where the King is. » So the nobles apparently discussed how to annul the marriage without Edward telling them to stop. Horspool uses that letter to suggest that the pre-contract never existed, for Edward could have freed himself by revealing it. & Except that he obviously didn't want to find himself married to Eleanor Butler either. So IMO, that letter doesn't prove anything.

Maybe Edward realized how foolish that marriage was, and let his nobles try to find a way of freeing him. Or maybe he just let them try, knowing that they could not. For IMO, the way he showered Elizabeth's family with gifts and positions, and the numerous children he had with her seems to speak against the idea that he ever considered to annul his marriage.

Eileen :

Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason.

Romane :

Could she have been a spy for the Woodvilles ? Or something could have made Clarence think so ? Anyway, in the accounts we have of Clarence's behavior, it seems that he often behaved like a complete madman after Isabel's death. He seems to have become quite paranoid. So who could know what incident might have raised his suspicion ?

And what if it was the huge secret he had discovered that had eaten him alive and made him lose his balance ? He might have thought that all he had to do was to wait for Edward's death, and reveal what he knows to become king. That could be why he apparently tried to ask an astrologer to calculate the date of his brother's death. But he could not prevent himself for becoming too bold and to hint at what he knew, which became his death warrant.


I too, wonder where does that reputation as a drunk come from. Most of the novels use it, but I've not found any mention of that in the history books so far.

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

2017-06-26 17:54:14
Karen O
Why dislike EoY? I find myself feeling the same way. Can't help feeling she was after a crown any way she could get it. She may have been responsible for the Richard wants Elizabeth rumours. Richard sends her from court. Why? Seems a bit draconian if it was all just silly gossip. Different though, if she was the source.   Why does she seem to "love" HT?What's to love? Except of course if she is a chip off the Woodvilles block, or she feared him and played up. No way can I imagine any genuine feeling there.
On Jun 26, 2017 12:07 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 

What a thought provoking question.
I dont know if 'hate' is the right word for what I feel for HT.   I despise him that for sure.  Is that worse than hate.
Funnily enough I feel something akin to hate towards the Stanleys, MB and Morton because the Weasle would never had got there if it had not been for their input.   
Detest EW..with some pity..as she paid a big price for her crap.
Dislike..thats not so strong as hate....dislike Elizabeth of York, Jane/Elizabeth Shore, Catesby, Edward IV

Admire John Howard Duke of York, Warwick, Cicely Neville, Richard Duke of York.
Like George Duke of Clarence. 

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

2017-06-26 18:06:30
ricard1an
Also as well as walking a mile in someone else's shoes we don't know what other things that he had to put up with. The fact that Edward refused to let Isabel and Anne marry George and Richard, was Edward trying to marry them off to two of the Woodvilles?
Mary

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

2017-06-26 19:40:57
ricard1an
I posted about Hastings previously but it seems to have got lost. Some years ago I read an article in the Bulletin about Hastings. He had the wardship of Thomas Grey before Edward married Elizabeth so that could be how Edward met her. Just a thought.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-26 20:09:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Again, my apologies for taking so long to reply! My one concern about George ever knowing of the Pre-Contract is that there's no evidence George ever told anyone about it. George may have had his faults, but I can't see him not recognizing that, if only to protect himself, he had to ensure that people other than himself knew. Of course, if George knew about the Pre-Contract because someone, such as Anne Beauchamp, told him, he then might feel that he was protected as he wasn't the only person in possession of such an important state secret. If his knowledge had come from Anne Beauchamp, and Edward later discovered the route the information had taken to get to his brother, might that help explain Edward's attitude towards the Countess? If Warwick had known of the Pre-Contract before the Re-Adeption, again, why didn't Warwick use that knowledge when confronting Edward? Why go to all the trouble of making up with Margaret of Anjou and trying to stick Henry VI back onto the throne? So, how does this idea strike you: Anne Beauchamp is the route by which the information about the Pre-Contract got to George, but that information didn't come to her until well after Edward had regained the throne in 1471? Possibly because the person who informed Anne Beauchamp was unable to contact her personally? Because, let's face it, would almost certainly would have to be passed on person-to-person; it simply wasn't safe to put such knowledge into a letter that might be read by someone other than the intended recipient. Edward's stripping her of her inheritance would give her more than enough reason to plot against him, and George's well-known feelings about who should really be sitting on the throne would give her the vehicle for revenge. However, the problem was that Edward IV was not only King, as opposed to his children, was legitimate. Thus, the only time for any revelations would have to be directly after Edward died; any attempt before that would only result in did what happen to George  execution as a traitor. But George didn't want to wait... How's that? I have to say, however, that I still seriously doubt that anyone other than Stillington knew of the Pre-Contract before the Bishop announced it. The fierceness with which the idea was resisted by the Woodville faction and a few others, as well as its ready acceptance by many more, only tells me that the idea that Edward might have pulled such a stunt (marrying secretly) more than once, had been at least considered by many. Doug Hilary wrote:Doug. Many, many apologies for the long earlier email - I couldn't paste a link so I had to copy it. The reason I love this forum is that so many minds coming up with varied solutions is much better than one person trying to sort it out. It's very easy to go into a research tunnel. Oh that all authors submitted their work to this forum for scrutiny! On a broader base I think I'm creeping towards a suspicion that George did know about the Pre Contract and therefore had to go. Who told who? Did Stillington tell Warwick (plotting at this time with George) or did Anne Beauchamp (Eleanor's aunt) tell them all? And when did Edward find out that George knew? Not till after 1475 methinks?
Anne Beauchamp's participation in all this explains why Stillington would support Lambert Simnel (i.e. Warwick). After her husband's death she of all had the most to gain. A Beauchamp grandson on the throne would go some way to compensate for the loss of her lands.
I don't think we can disregard a Stillington/Neville pact. His family is in the Neville affinity. And, incidentally, the original ancestor/possessor of the Bytton lands was a Neville. Somewhere in this is the Neville bid to regain their lands in the West Country.
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-26 20:17:59
Karen O
Seems likely to me. Marry Anne to a Widville, get her inheritance. Marry RICHARD nto another and get a royal Duchess.
On Jun 26, 2017 1:06 PM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:
 

Also as well as walking a mile in someone else's shoes we don't know what other things that he had to put up with. The fact that Edward refused to let Isabel and Anne marry George and Richard, was Edward trying to marry them off to two of the Woodvilles?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-26 20:28:44
Doug Stamate
Romane wrote: When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe. Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII. Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ? Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true. Doug here: It's only my opinion, but I rather think Edward was planning on doing the same to Elizabeth Woodville as he'd already done to Eleanor Butler: Love em and leave em. However, unlike what occurred with Eleanor Butler, Elizabeth's mother wasn't about to let a catch such as Edward get away... Doug Romane


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

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have mean t that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-26 21:12:25
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: HIlary I know you share my more tolerant attitude towards George who has a somewhat tarnished reputation but I'm not convinced, Something popped into my head the other day.,where does this drunken reputation come from. Did anyone of the time mention it, Croyland, Mancini, etc., ? Doug here: The only reference* I know concerning George and alcohol is that butt of Malmsey he was supposedly drowned in. My personal opinion of that, FWIW, is that George was allowed to stiffen his courage with some wine before his execution. A practice that wasn't usual, if I recall it correctly. Doug *By some playwright, I believe...
--
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

2017-06-26 21:54:01
b.eileen25
Doug re Edward's possible 'love 'em and leave 'em' attitude..I agree this was quite possibly and makes you wonder were there other ladies out there besides poor ET who got used and then dumped. This was why it was so important to cover one's backside by any marriage being performed in facie ecclesie i.e. not clandestinely which also enabled anyone who knew a reason why not could speak up which is exactly what our Jack the Lad didn't want.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-26 22:02:24
Durose David
Hilary,I have had a look on line at the Askes, and found a family tree showing Roger son of Wimar son of Guyomar. The mention of Wimar is confirmed in a book on the old families of Yorkshire. Wimar / Guyomar / Guyomarc'h are essentially the same name - definitely Breton.
I also think that the idea that the English are all descended from Germanic or Scandinavian invaders is pretty well discredited. I think that the specialists in the subject consider Celtic as a linguistic construct. So I suppose it is reasonable to say England was a celtic nation. I think Elmet in Yorkshire remained a Welsh speaking kingdom.
There were always links between Britain and Armorica/Brittany and some of the families were settled before 1066. From memory Ralph de Gael / Montfort was Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk. Gael was the capital of the Breton kingdom of Dumnonée which corresponds to Dumnonia (Devon) in England.
The Breton court was in exile at the court of Athelstan when the Duchy had been overrun by Vikings. The two nations seem to have coordinated action to rid both countries of the invaders.
As Mary points out there are linguistic and tribal links too. One correspondence that has intrigued me is between Gwynedd and Vannes - the Romans called Gwynedd Venedotia and the Breton name for Vannes is Gwened.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Sat, 24 Jun 2017 ct at 8:57, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [richardiiisocietyforu<> wrote:

Thanks David, I'm working on this. Interestingly, the Mortons seem to have originated in Yorkshire and then moved south via Nottingham. I find that a lot of these Breton links come via marriage with a 'gateway' ancestor. But I think it would have been something of which people were very much aware and the tradition is carried via names. In Yorkshire I've traced quite a few but, for example, I haven't traced the Askes. Yet with a prevalence of Conans and Johns you can bet Breton ancestry is there somewhere. As you know, it's complex. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 23:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary Another fascinating post that mentions one of the probable Breton families that I knew about. Gower - erroneously linked to a place near Paris is more likely de Guer. Guer apparently was an apanage granted to the cadets of the house of de Malestroit. By coincidence, the family de Malestroit built the castle of Largöet and its Tower of Elven, where Henry Tudor was accommodated. By then the castle had passed by marriage to Jean IV de Rieux, one of the key players of the period.
The Gowers were settled before the Conquest.
As an as side, I find John Morton's coat of arms intriguing - the ermine is often a sign of Breton descent, but I have not found a link.
Regards David
On 23 Jun 2017 10:01 a.m., "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-26 22:24:56
Durose David
Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote:

Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary





Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-26 23:07:54
b.eileen25
Doug.the story that George was drowned in a butt of malmsey - which may be true - has led some people to believe that the story of death by wine alluded to the fact that George liked a drink and/or was an alcoholic. This isnt necessarily true and I dont buy into this at all.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 08:07:49
romanenemo

David :

Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.

Romane :

But can we sure that we can believe the rebels on that point ? It was in their interest to say so.

David :

1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.

Romane :

Yes, but then he would have ended up married to Eleanor Butler.

The idea is not that he married Elizabeth to avoid marrying Bona, of course. Just that he decided he could marry Elizabeth because marrying any princess might cause huge diplomatic problems. And as many recently said, it's very possible that he had in mind to cast her aside as he'd done with Eleanor. Only he couldn't, because Elizabeth was not likely to behave as Eleanor had, to shut her mouth and to bury herself in a nunnery.

David :

2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses

- that Eleanor may have been a mistress

- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.

Romane :

The reason I tend to think that the story was genuine is the face that in the 1470s, the most interesting story for George was that of Edward's own illegitimacy. A story useful only if the king die', considering the age and robust health of the man at that time, was not likely to be very interesting for George.

But if it was true, and if George was almost bursting from trying to shut his mouth, wondering how and when he could use the secret , then it can explain some part of George's dangerous defiance of his brother. And the fact that he asked for his brother's horoscope.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 08:23:09
romanenemo
With the princes' disappearance, George's behavior during the year 1477 and the circumstances of his death are the other huge mystery of that fascinating period. Many of his actions, such as the hanging of Ankarette Twynyho, his reading of Stacey and Burdett's declarations of innocence in from of parliament, seem the actions of a man completely out of his mind. And maybe it's that, plus the story of the barrel of Malmsey, that explain his reputation as a drunk. But maybe it's like the account we have from Mancini of Richard's behavior at Northampton and Stony Stratford. We have the actions and not the reasons. Hence a somehow disjointed narrative.
Romane

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

2017-06-27 08:59:45
Hilary Jones
As Counsel for the Defence for Warwick Mary, I would say that he and his father had been loyal to the HOY through thick and thin for decades. That meant his father dying with ROY at Wakefield. It would be interesting to know how he viewed Edward. He himself was a Renaissance man, forty years' before the Renaissance. He was a warrior, a sailor, a traveller, a linguist (that's why Louis liked him) and a collector of fine things. And he seems to have done a good job in coping with an adolescent boy who had just discovered he had scoliosis. He was probably more of a father to Richard than anyone.Edward snubbed him at least twice. Once after the Bona negotiations and again when he tried to persuade the Plantagenet boys to marry his girls. Edward did the same sort of thing with George. He wouldn't let him find a bride in Burgundy so he could be with Margaret and he then wouldn't let him marry Isabel. One could see how two totally fed up people were drawn together - and who knows if Cis didn't egg them on to teach Edward a bit of a lesson. After all, he did escape from Warwick's captivity a bit easily.I think by the time Warwick changed sides and defected to MOA he was in the same place that HT would be years' later - the last chance saloon. Ironically, he probably overestimated his peril. Judging by the treatment of George and Cis's pleas to save him, Warwick, he could have got away with a slapped wrist (and a few forfeited lands of course). That would have saved at least one battle.All this comes back again to the 'golden Edward'. It wasn't until, of all people, Ross started to pick him to bits in his very good biography that the real Edward starts to emerge. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 15:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I suppose we do forget that he was quite young and all the responsibility that he took on. He needed someone like Warwick to be his mentor but if he was arrogant, as young men sometimes are at that age, then he would do as he liked because he was the King. I am starting to feel sorry for Warwick now, though I can't forgive him for committing treason and making Anne marry E OF L.
Mary

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

2017-06-27 09:01:37
Hilary Jones
Agreed Eileen. One does begin to think that Edward wasn't that bright. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 15:53
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Although I do agree with you Mary to a certain extent, on the other hand I do not blame Warwick for the way he acted per se. How much of his life, spent in the saddle and hardships he endured for the Yorkists to be treated like that by Edward. And then the upstarts woodvilles...all the loyalty thrown back in his face. it must have been intolerable. I too don't like the way he joined forces with the lancastrians and the marrying off of Anne. Add to the equation he knew or guessed about EB and it pretty toxic. I guess you have to walk a mile in anyone shoes to appreciate how they feel and th decisions they were led to. But it was a sorry day that Edward treated Warwick in such a cavalier manner which led to Warwick's death because his death was a great loss to the Yorkists as was Hastings. Don't you just always get a whiff of Woodvilles machinations behind every wrong turn Edward made.

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

2017-06-27 09:03:38
Hilary Jones
Queen's College Cambridge. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 16:44
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Who hates HT with a passion?
On Jun 26, 2017 9:03 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Your last point's very interesting, Nico. Edward certainly side-lined Cis and she was 'proud Cis'. It's ironic that although EW's picture sits in Queens, it's Richard that they love. They even have his boar motto on the paper napkins they use every day. They hate HT with a vengeance for taking Richard's funding away. Pity we can't find that portrait of Anne to replace it. H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: "@ yahoogroups.com" <@ yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary






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

2017-06-27 09:10:26
Hilary Jones
I actually pity him Eileen because he was a man who should never have been in the job and who clearly didn't enjoy it. He was put there by other people's machinations which left him nowhere else to go. As we know, he didn't enjoy Bosworth battlefield and I doubt he really enjoyed the triumph of the unexpected win. Add to that, that he would sit and look across his rooms and see Richard every day of his life it must have been a tortuous existence only mitigated by avarice.Problem is England had to endure his torture too. It's those who schemed to put him there who should be really disliked. I agree with the rest of your likes and dislikes. I'd probably add Hastings to the 'like' bit. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 17:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

What a thought provoking question.
I dont know if 'hate' is the right word for what I feel for HT. I despise him that for sure. Is that worse than hate.
Funnily enough I feel something akin to hate towards the Stanleys, MB and Morton because the Weasle would never had got there if it had not been for their input.
Detest EW..with some pity..as she paid a big price for her crap.
Dislike..thats not so strong as hate....dislike Elizabeth of York, Jane/Elizabeth Shore, Catesby, Edward IV

Admire John Howard Duke of York, Warwick, Cicely Neville, Richard Duke of York.
Like George Duke of Clarence.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 09:12:57
Hilary Jones
Doesn't Margaret Pole's portrait show her with wine barrel jewellery? H (who doesn't believe the drunken or drowning bit either)

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 21:12
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Eileen wrote: HIlary I know you share my more tolerant attitude towards George who has a somewhat tarnished reputation but I'm not convinced, Something popped into my head the other day.,where does this drunken reputation come from. Did anyone of the time mention it, Croyland, Mancini, etc., ? Doug here: The only reference* I know concerning George and alcohol is that butt of Malmsey he was supposedly drowned in. My personal opinion of that, FWIW, is that George was allowed to stiffen his courage with some wine before his execution. A practice that wasn't usual, if I recall it correctly. Doug *By some playwright, I believe...
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-27 09:14:32
Hilary Jones
Interesting! Re who spilled the beans on him to Richard could it have come through the Jane Shore/Dorset route. Jane Shore's penance always seems very odd to me. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 19:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I posted about Hastings previously but it seems to have got lost. Some years ago I read an article in the Bulletin about Hastings. He had the wardship of Thomas Grey before Edward married Elizabeth so that could be how Edward met her. Just a thought.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 09:22:32
ricard1an
Over many years various "historians" have latched on to stories/ facts about Richard and the Wars of the Roses. They have not considered that there may well have been other stories/ facts that we don't know about and may well have been the reason why someone from that time acted as they did. Time and again on this forum someone will report something and Marie will come up with properly researched evidence to prove the report right or wrong. Hilary has a wealth of knowledge about family connections which are proving to be very relevant to what happened. We may never know what happened exactly but it is right to research and discuss this period and not to rely on Tudor propaganda and the opinions of people who just accept More and believe that Shakespeare was a historian.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 09:33:35
Hilary Jones
I could buy most of this Doug, but the best chance for Anne Beauchamp to have learned of the Pre Contract was when she met Eleanor face to face in 1467. However, she could have met Elizabeth Talbot later face to face, after Eleanor's death. Does anyone know of occasions when she could? Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew.I think George is too far in the middle of this mess not to have known. He's bang in the middle of Stillington and Neville country. But I think we've been conned into thinking of George as a drunkard and buffoon. If he had been he wouldn't have been that much of a threat to Edward. What bits we know of him indicate he was witty, a charmer and well liked in the areas he governed. And would Margaret have dedicated the first printed book on Chess to a buffoon? In fact the Chess probably tells us something - that George may well have had a brain equal or better than Edward's. If he did, then he (and Warwick who also had a good brain) would know that the information was of no use until Edward was dead. That's because Edward could put it right by putting aside EW and having a legitimate heir. I think we've said before that Edward junior couldn't be legitimised?So if they knew in 1469 they could do nothing. It was powerful knowledge but it was dangerous knowledge which might well have surfaced when George had mental health issues (I think that's how we'd put it today) after the death of Isabel. Which is why there was no question of him surviving. BTW I don't think EW knew - she I'm sure would have got Edward to do something about it on the quiet by twisting the Pope's arm, even if he failed.Just my thoughts. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 20:09
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary, Again, my apologies for taking so long to reply! My one concern about George ever knowing of the Pre-Contract is that there's no evidence George ever told anyone about it. George may have had his faults, but I can't see him not recognizing that, if only to protect himself, he had to ensure that people other than himself knew. Of course, if George knew about the Pre-Contract because someone, such as Anne Beauchamp, told him, he then might feel that he was protected as he wasn't the only person in possession of such an important state secret. If his knowledge had come from Anne Beauchamp, and Edward later discovered the route the information had taken to get to his brother, might that help explain Edward's attitude towards the Countess? If Warwick had known of the Pre-Contract before the Re-Adeption, again, why didn't Warwick use that knowledge when confronting Edward? Why go to all the trouble of making up with Margaret of Anjou and trying to stick Henry VI back onto the throne? So, how does this idea strike you: Anne Beauchamp is the route by which the information about the Pre-Contract got to George, but that information didn't come to her until well after Edward had regained the throne in 1471? Possibly because the person who informed Anne Beauchamp was unable to contact her personally? Because, let's face it, would almost certainly would have to be passed on person-to-person; it simply wasn't safe to put such knowledge into a letter that might be read by someone other than the intended recipient. Edward's stripping her of her inheritance would give her more than enough reason to plot against him, and George's well-known feelings about who should really be sitting on the throne would give her the vehicle for revenge. However, the problem was that Edward IV was not only King, as opposed to his children, was legitimate. Thus, the only time for any revelations would have to be directly after Edward died; any attempt before that would only result in did what happen to George  execution as a traitor. But George didn't want to wait... How's that? I have to say, however, that I still seriously doubt that anyone other than Stillington knew of the Pre-Contract before the Bishop announced it. The fierceness with which the idea was resisted by the Woodville faction and a few others, as well as its ready acceptance by many more, only tells me that the idea that Edward might have pulled such a stunt (marrying secretly) more than once, had been at least considered by many. Doug Hilary wrote:Doug. Many, many apologies for the long earlier email - I couldn't paste a link so I had to copy it. The reason I love this forum is that so many minds coming up with varied solutions is much better than one person trying to sort it out. It's very easy to go into a research tunnel. Oh that all authors submitted their work to this forum for scrutiny! On a broader base I think I'm creeping towards a suspicion that George did know about the Pre Contract and therefore had to go. Who told who? Did Stillington tell Warwick (plotting at this time with George) or did Anne Beauchamp (Eleanor's aunt) tell them all? And when did Edward find out that George knew? Not till after 1475 methinks?
Anne Beauchamp's participation in all this explains why Stillington would support Lambert Simnel (i.e. Warwick). After her husband's death she of all had the most to gain. A Beauchamp grandson on the throne would go some way to compensate for the loss of her lands.
I don't think we can disregard a Stillington/Neville pact. His family is in the Neville affinity. And, incidentally, the original ancestor/possessor of the Bytton lands was a Neville. Somewhere in this is the Neville bid to regain their lands in the West Country.
--
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

2017-06-27 09:35:20
Hilary Jones
I agree Doug - hence the delay in revealing the marriage. One does wonder how many more there were. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 20:28
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Romane wrote: When I first learnt about the story of Edward and Elizabeth, I thought it was extremely romantic and unusual : the king who married for love. But once I knew more about the consequences of that marriage, I realized what a catastrophic decision it had been on a political level. It of course began the rift between Warwick and Edward, with a new civil war and Edward nearly losing his throne as a consequence. And it also led Edward to favor an alliance with Burgundy, whereas Charles the Bold was a very poor choice as a reliable ally. Not only was he as untrustworthy as Louis XI could have been, but he was stupid. Allied, England and France might have divided Charles's possessions between them, and there would nave been no empire of Charles V, at least in Europe. Opinions are divided as to whether the pre-contract to Eleanor Butler actually existed or not. But anyway, it would have been more difficult to declare that the children of a foreign princess were bastards. It could be done of course, but probably with much more difficulties with the princess's family and with the Pope, as it happened to Henry VIII. Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ? Anyway, that foolish secret marriage to Elizabeth shows that he might very well have been irresponsible enough for the pre-contract story to be true. Doug here: It's only my opinion, but I rather think Edward was planning on doing the same to Elizabeth Woodville as he'd already done to Eleanor Butler: Love em and leave em. However, unlike what occurred with Eleanor Butler, Elizabeth's mother wasn't about to let a catch such as Edward get away... Doug Romane


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

Romane, off the top of my head I can't remember the source, however, I didn't quote it to suggest that Edward wasn't R of Y's son but to suggest what I think Cecily meant by that remark, if indeed she did make it. I think she meant that Edward marrying EW was not the correct way for a king to behave and I think that she would have mean t that Edward wasn't like his father who would not have done such a thing. Warwick was negotiating a marriage with the French for the hand of Bona of Savoy and Edward had allowed him to carry on his negotiating for four months after he was married to Elizabeth. This was the beginning of the rift between Edward and Warwick. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence

2017-06-27 09:43:47
Hilary Jones
Thanks David!Another family which you might have heard of are the FitzHenrys (formerly de Manfield). Elizabeth FitzHenry married Stillington's nephew in the late 1470s . The Manfields seem to have descended from Copsi Fitzarkill, who was the righthand man of Alain of Richmond who came over with the Conqueror? One thinks of Cornwall and parts of Wales as being Breton, but rarely Yorkshire (and Scotland). Fascinating how they stuck together through the centuries. H


From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:02
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary,I have had a look on line at the Askes, and found a family tree showing Roger son of Wimar son of Guyomar. The mention of Wimar is confirmed in a book on the old families of Yorkshire. Wimar / Guyomar / Guyomarc'h are essentially the same name - definitely Breton.
I also think that the idea that the English are all descended from Germanic or Scandinavian invaders is pretty well discredited. I think that the specialists in the subject consider Celtic as a linguistic construct. So I suppose it is reasonable to say England was a celtic nation. I think Elmet in Yorkshire remained a Welsh speaking kingdom.
There were always links between Britain and Armorica/Brittany and some of the families were settled before 1066. From memory Ralph de Gael / Montfort was Earl of Norfolk and Suffolk. Gael was the capital of the Breton kingdom of Dumnonée which corresponds to Dumnonia (Devon) in England.
The Breton court was in exile at the court of Athelstan when the Duchy had been overrun by Vikings. The two nations seem to have coordinated action to rid both countries of the invaders.
As Mary points out there are linguistic and tribal links too. One correspondence that has intrigued me is between Gwynedd and Vannes - the Romans called Gwynedd Venedotia and the Breton name for Vannes is Gwened.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Thanks David, I'm working on this. Interestingly, the Mortons seem to have originated in Yorkshire and then moved south via Nottingham. I find that a lot of these Breton links come via marriage with a 'gateway' ancestor. But I think it would have been something of which people were very much aware and the tradition is carried via names. In Yorkshire I've traced quite a few but, for example, I haven't traced the Askes. Yet with a prevalence of Conans and Johns you can bet Breton ancestry is there somewhere. As you know, it's complex. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 23 June 2017, 23:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary Another fascinating post that mentions one of the probable Breton families that I knew about. Gower - erroneously linked to a place near Paris is more likely de Guer. Guer apparently was an apanage granted to the cadets of the house of de Malestroit. By coincidence, the family de Malestroit built the castle of Largöet and its Tower of Elven, where Henry Tudor was accommodated. By then the castle had passed by marriage to Jean IV de Rieux, one of the key players of the period.
The Gowers were settled before the Conquest.
As an as side, I find John Morton's coat of arms intriguing - the ermine is often a sign of Breton descent, but I have not found a link.
Regards David
On 23 Jun 2017 10:01 a.m., "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
Hi Doug my other email was so lengthy that I omitted to mention something I think important.
Stillington had access to Richard Neville through his Yorkshire roots. Thanks to Horrox we know that the wider Stillington family (Ingleby, Constable, Hungate, Gower) were in Richard Neville's affinity before Barnet and Richard inherited them when he married Anne. So Stillington wouldn't just have been some distant Bishop to Warwick, he would have been a local man. And George had lands in Richmond, he wasn't exactly a stranger to the North either.
To return to your questions:
George: this is all I have on him
'for burying George Stillington in the chapel of St. Mary in the cloister 3s 4d 14921493. Accounts of Richard Pomerey, Keeper of the Fabric, from Michaelmas, 1492, to Michaelmas, 1493. Wells From: 'Fabric accounts: 1492-3', Calendar of the Manuscripts of the Dean & Chapter of Wells: volume 2 (1914), pp. 130-133. '
He clearly wasn't a priest there because priests are described as such.I have found a John Stillington collated to the Prebendary of Shalford in 1477 and never, as far as I can see, heard of again. And there is a William Stillington who continues to be a priest but who could also have been the son of the Bishop's brother, Thomas
The Hamptons: the John Hampton of Kinver that you found on wiki was a distant relation. He did well under Henry VI, died in about 1472 (I recall) and left no children. There is correspondence between him and his cousin Thomas from Southampton in the Stonor papers. 'Our' John Hampton is as follows:
'The Hampton manor of Badgeworth (given by King John) together with other properties in north Somerset and south Gloucestershire, was held in the fifteenth century by his descendant Philip (d. (440), to whom Alice Catecot brought the inheritance of Catecot and Gournay. As the Gournays were the heirs of the Harptrees, the representation not only of Gournay but of the Harptrees (who were descended from John of Harptrce, the ancestor of Level of Castle Cary, Level of Minster Level, and of Perceval of Stowell and Westonin-Gordano), passed by this marriage to the Hamptons. Among these properties was the ominously named Richmont Castle, " in the Rote of Mendip,' the scanty ruins of which yet remain about a quarter of a mile to the south- west of East Harptree church. Richard Hampton's daughter Katherine was married to Richard Perceval (d. 1482) of weston-in-Gordano.'! Easton-in-Gordano passed, after the Duke of York's death, to his son George, Duke of Clarence, who for a consideration allowed Henry VI's tenant to retain the property. These circumstances, together with his Nevill marriage, suggest that Richard Hampton may have supported York, the Nevills and/or Clarence. The probability is strengthened by the marriage in about 1460-65 of his son and heir, John, to the Yorkist bishop's daughter. Richard Hampton died between November 146816 and March 1472, the absence of either will or Inquisition Post Mortem pointing to a sudden death, probably during the battles of 146971. Stillington, then, had provided well for his daughter.'
This is from a paper by W. E Hampton on Bishop Stillington's Chapel in Wells and his family in Somerset. I think Marie will know where you can get the full copy. Most of it is taken from a very good Victorian history of Somerset. Both are well worth reading. Note the reference to Clarence yet again in that area. Richard Hampton born in 1415 (father's IPM), John's father, supposedly married an Egelina Nevill, niece of Cis, but she is elusive. I reckon Hampton's assessment of the date of Juliana's marriage is a bit early. She had three children in straight succession (and then probably died) which says to me they were conceived soon after her marriage. John Hampton witnessed a deed in 1480 (with a lovely group of later 1483 rebels) and was dead by 1483, when his girls are in the charge of the Chokkes.
Who would gain the most from the marriage? Difficult to say, who could predict the eclipse of the Nevills after Barnet (although their eclipse led to the temporary rise of George). I would call the families into which the girls married 'fence-sitters'. None turned out for Bosworth. They'd done well under Edward but the Newtons and Gorges had significant Welsh connections so it was win win. The Chokkes went bust within a generation, as did the husband of Lucy, John ap Morgan. Given the girls were mopped up so quickly and passed around among the families I would say it was Juliana would stood to gain the most. Most bishops' children could expect to make middling marriages.
Finally, looking at Stillington's own background through his mother, it's possible that he thought he had a more distinguished ancestry than the Plantagenets. We tend to take them as the benchmark, but some who came with the Conqueror regarded their own pedigree as superior and the Plantagenets as upstarts. We see that with people like the Courtenays and other Magna Carta knights. In fact these families never really got over believing they could tell the king what to do.
I'll shut up now. H (who spent a lifetime doing stats for the gov and being grilled by auditors. It's a good discipline for on here. You all provide a marvellous audit :) :)




From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017, 18:21
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Hilary wrote: Having last week written that I could find little evidence to support a collusion between Clarence and Stillington, I this week stumbled on something which gave me second thoughts.
Before I say what it was, I've always been puzzled by what seems a ridiculous report by Commynes that the Bishop wanted to do a marriage deal for his son with Richard in exchange for the Pre Contract story (incidentally I've only ever found one prospective son, George, who was buried at Wells in the early 1490s). Trouble is the ridiculous bits often have a grain of truth. Doug here: What was the age of that prospective son when he died? Do you know? Of course, what with the paucity of accurate information for what exactly did happen, such a scenario is possible. Then again, it's also possible that Commynes' comments were simply his attempt to explain what was in it for Stillington; based on the presumption that the Pre-Contract was just a story made up to justify Richard replacing his nephew as king. If the Bishop was going to lie, or possibly so reasoned Commynes, then there'd have to be something in it for him  or his family, aka as the Bishop's illegitimate children. Intriguing possibility, though. Hilary continued: Now I wonder whether Stillington had done the same marriage deal before - for his daughter? This week, whilst on an entirely different search, I came across the IPM of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick. In it is named Philip Hampton and his manor of East Harptree,Somerset. Phili p Hampton was the grandfather of John Hampton who married Juliana Stillington. By almost a fluke, John Hampton had become heir to some of the most treasured lands in Somerset, passed down from the Bytttons and the De Gournays. He was therefore a 'catch' and he was in Stillington's diocese next to people the Bishop knew. The overlordship of East Harptree was passed down to Henry, Duke of Warwick and then, no doubt, to Anne Beauchamp and her husband Richard Neville. After 1471 it would pass to Clarence as Warwick land - some of it had also belonged to Isabel Despenser? Doug here: Am I correct in presuming that John Hampton inherited those lands before his marriage to Juliana Stillington? Just when did he inherit? If Wikipedia is correct, Richard Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick, died in 1439 and his son, Henry, 1st Duke of Warwick died in 1446. The only John Hampton I could find had him serving Henry VI in 1443  any relation to this John Hampton? If so, he'd have been a rather elderly husband for Juliana.
Hilary continued: We know the ages of Juliana's daughters as they are listed in the IPM of Joan Barre, so this places her date of marriage in 1468 - just about the time when Warwick and Clarence were up to no good. Edward, of course, didn't have a son at this point and George was heir, but it was powerful knowledge if used at the appropriate time and, for George and Warwick, well worth enabling a marriage to reward the Bishop. We think Stillington spent the Readeption holed up in St Martin's, but it's interesting that he's granted a general pardon by Edward in 1472, yet we don't know why, do we? Doug here: Just a thought about that general pardon: Were others also granted general pardons and do we have any idea for what those pardons may have been? What do you think of the idea that the Bishop received that pardon simply because he hadn't left sanctuary and actively worked for Edward's return? Or, from another angle, wasn't he supposed to have assisted in getting George to return to his loyalty to Edward? Or have I confused this Bishop with another? Perhaps that general pardon was issued to cover the period while Stillington was working on George, but hadn't yet brought him back into his brother's camp? As for a why Hampton should marry the illegitimate daughter of the Bishop of Bath and Wells; well, if I supported Edward, while living amongst lands owned by two such powerful personages not always know for getting along with him, I just might want someone on my side who had the ear of the King. Just sayin'. Hilary concluded:
If we then leap forward to the death of Clarence, such knowledge would give him a real reason for 'conjuring the death of the King' i.e. Edward dies, Stillington steps forward and reveals the Pre Contract and Clarence, not Richard, becomes king. As it is Clarence (with this knowledge) has to be removed and the Bishop is given a frightener in the Tower. What then doesn't add up is why Stillington seems to have supported the Simnel rebellion - or perhaps he thought he was living on borrowed time anyway?
Sorry this is so long  Doug here: How about this: Hampton marries the illegitimate daughter of Stillington to provide himself with a connection to someone who will support him, John Hampton, is also well-placed in government circles (to say the least) and, most importantly has no other distractions (such as having another daughter married to someone who is in competition with Hampton for places or lands) in the area. Any marriage between Hampton and any local would force him to side, to a large degree, with one family, while quite possibly being looked at as his siding against someone else's family, wouldn't it? OTOH, Juliana Stillington wouldn't bring that sort of baggage into a marriage. Or would she? Of course, he possibly ran the risk of having everyone against him, but perhaps he felt that, with someone such as the Bishop on his side, he could manage it? Also, see my above. Do you know of any other possible brides that Hampton passed over? BTW, did George actually conjure the death of his brother, or did he simply want to know when Edward was going to die? By law, of course, there was no difference, but there is a difference in intent. A world of difference, IMO, anyway. It seems to me that Stillington's support of the Simnel rebellion makes sense if one accepts that Stillington knew Edward and Elizabeth's marriage wasn't a marriage and their children were illegitimate. After the deaths of Edward of Middleham and then Richard III, the next legitimate Yorkist heir, even with that Attainder, was young Warwick. Doug Who wonders how you do it! My eyes would have fallen out of my head long, long ago!
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-27 09:51:02
Hilary Jones
Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary







Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 10:05:04
Hilary Jones
It is a huge mystery and I'd so hoped JAH would have devoted more time to it in his book on George.There are more ways of getting rid of someone than openly sticking a knife in their back. Perhaps it was open knowledge that George's Achilles heel was Isabel - he'd nearly lost her in that ship off Calais a few years' before? Certainly the circumstances of her death are odd, I recall she had her child at Tewkesbury Abbey, seemed fine, came home and died a few weeks' later? Not like puerperal fever. Do I also recall that he sat with her for days afterwards refusing to let her be buried?Ankarette was certainly old for a nurse (about 72) and she was the granddaughter of two celebrated murderers who got away with it - which would no doubt be brought to George's attention. After the Ankarette incident we move to Warwick (former home of Anne Beauchamp) where Burdet is not any old person, he's an ex High Sheriff. BTW the Twynyhos are from both Talbot and Stillington circles in Somerset.It all warrants a lot more investigation, and if it was planned, it was very cleverly planned. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 8:23
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

With the princes' disappearance, George's behavior during the year 1477 and the circumstances of his death are the other huge mystery of that fascinating period. Many of his actions, such as the hanging of Ankarette Twynyho, his reading of Stacey and Burdett's declarations of innocence in from of parliament, seem the actions of a man completely out of his mind. And maybe it's that, plus the story of the barrel of Malmsey, that explain his reputation as a drunk. But maybe it's like the account we have from Mancini of Richard's behavior at Northampton and Stony Stratford. We have the actions and not the reasons. Hence a somehow disjointed narrative.
Romane

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 10:06:21
Hilary Jones
Thanks for your nice comment, Mary! H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 9:22
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Over many years various "historians" have latched on to stories/ facts about Richard and the Wars of the Roses. They have not considered that there may well have been other stories/ facts that we don't know about and may well have been the reason why someone from that time acted as they did. Time and again on this forum someone will report something and Marie will come up with properly researched evidence to prove the report right or wrong. Hilary has a wealth of knowledge about family connections which are proving to be very relevant to what happened. We may never know what happened exactly but it is right to research and discuss this period and not to rely on Tudor propaganda and the opinions of people who just accept More and believe that Shakespeare was a historian.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 11:41:39
b.eileen25
HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 11:45:37
b.eileen25
HIlary I have not come across anything saying that George sat with Isobel for several days refusing to let her body be buried. BUt I do know that her coffined body lay at rest in the choir of Tewkesbury abbey for 30 days, This possibly may have been while they were getting the Clarence vault prepared?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 11:46:27
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Eileen ý

Very interesting. Why would Margaret have been wearing (?) a W? Do you have a link to the portrait, so we can check it out?

Thanks!

Johanne

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []<mailto:>
Sent: June 27, 2017 7:41 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.




Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 11:47:19
b.eileen25
I prefer Hick's book on Clarence,,,

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 11:57:03
b.eileen25
Johanne..W for Warwick...her young brother ...judicially murdered by the Tudors,
IM afraid I'm no good at providing links..but a google search for images of MP will always show up this very famous portrait, In my blog I also compared it with Rous' drawing of a young Margaret and you can definitely see a likeness especially around the eyes which are rather almond shaped.
You could also visit the National Portrait Gallery page type in Margaret Pole Countess of Salisbury and find it that way. Hope that helps

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 12:03:49
Stephen

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 12:05:47
b.eileen25
Can you honestly see George dragging an innocent old woman out of her home and to Warwick and thence trial and execution for no good reason. Come on now this makes no sense. And then this act is used by some to imply George was either mad, bad or both..oh..or a drunk. George undoubtedly acted like a man of the times and sometimes was out of order but its largely forgotten that he did do many good acts in his time besides being very pious. I think he ended up fighting for his life as did his brother. It stinks..of Woodvilles.
By the by..is it because we argue and debate on here, raise questions etc., we have been divorced by you know who?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 12:06:30
b.eileen25
oooops thank you Stephen..I wish I could do that.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 12:25:35
romanenemo
Hilary:
I actually pity him Eileen because he was a man who should never have been in the job and who clearly didn't enjoy it. He was put there by other people's machinations which left him nowhere else to go. As we know, he didn't enjoy Bosworth battlefield and I doubt he really enjoyed the triumph of the unexpected win. Add to that, that he would sit and look across his rooms and see Richard every day of his life it must have been a tortuous existence only mitigated by avarice.
Romane:But what about his way of dating his reign from one day before the battle, so he could condemn for treason those who had fought for Richard ? And what about his way of getting rid of everyone having a better claim to the throne than himself ? His jailing of Warwick (a child) for years ? I can't feel much pity for him.
Eileen:Like George Duke of Clarence.

Romane:I'd be interested in knowing why. I too often feel sorry for George, but I know it's because of all the novels describing his pathetic last days with sympathy, or imagining him rather nice and protective with Richard as a child and mad with grief after Isabel's death. But these are speculations from novelists.But what do we actually know about him ? That he betrayed his brother when Warwick promised him the throne, then betrayed Warwick when there was no longer anything for him in his plans. That out of greed, he aggressively and doggedly tried to prevent Richard, who had never done anything to him, from marrying Anne. That he kept plotting against Edward who had forgiven him so many times and showered him with prized possessions. Not the most attractive record.I can help feeling sorry for him, for he was killed by his own brother, which is quite horrible. But on the grounds of facts, I can't find him very likable.


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

I actually pity him Eileen because he was a man who should never have been in the job and who clearly didn't enjoy it. He was put there by other people's machinations which left him nowhere else to go. As we know, he didn't enjoy Bosworth battlefield and I doubt he really enjoyed the triumph of the unexpected win. Add to that, that he would sit and look across his rooms and see Richard every day of his life it must have been a tortuous existence only mitigated by avarice.Problem is England had to endure his torture too. It's those who schemed to put him there who should be really disliked. I agree with the rest of your likes and dislikes. I'd probably add Hastings to the 'like' bit. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 17:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

What a thought provoking question.
I dont know if 'hate' is the right word for what I feel for HT. I despise him that for sure. Is that worse than hate.
Funnily enough I feel something akin to hate towards the Stanleys, MB and Morton because the Weasle would never had got there if it had not been for their input.
Detest EW..with some pity..as she paid a big price for her crap.
Dislike..thats not so strong as hate....dislike Elizabeth of York, Jane/Elizabeth Shore, Catesby, Edward IV

Admire John Howard Duke of York, Warwick, Cicely Neville, Richard Duke of York.
Like George Duke of Clarence.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 12:36:30
romanenemo
Hilary:It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case?

Romane:There are two explanations : either the pre-contract never existed, or we must suppose that she didn't tell anyone about it, possibly because she didn't want to become Edward's queen. There could be many reasons for that: because she was disappointed by his behavior and preferred the nunnery, because she didn't want to force his hand if he didn't want her ... Maybe Stilington was really the only one to know, and the one who spilled the beans to George. Why would Anne Beauchamp know, for example, just because she was Eleanor's aunt ?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 12:37:38
Paul Trevor Bale
Yes the barrel always has been seen as a reference to the story of Clarence being drowned in a malmsey butt. Though of course for me that tale refers to his alcoholism and the fact his final request before execution, which would have been beheading, not drowning, may have been a butt of his favourite tipple, which would then have been used for his coffin.And of course MP was not his daughter.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 27 juin 2017 à 13:05, 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... [] <> a écrit :

https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 12:44:28
b.eileen25
Romane: 'on the grounds of the facts I dont find him very likeable'
Eileen: I do realise I im going to be in a tiny minority here..but hey ho..I shall stand firm in my belief..that George did some bad stuff..and did some good stuff. That possibly he knew about the Talbot marriage..and that the Woodvilles were out to get him. That Shakespeare has done a hatchet job on him much as he did to his brother describing him as 'false, fleeting and perjured' which is quite kind compared to how he described Richard but thats another story. That he loved his wife and his children and tried to get his small son out of the country when everything started to implode around him. That he was physically a brave man. That there were those that were intent on causing mischief between him and Edward (Ankarette Twynho may have been involved here..this may be from one of JAH's book on this..still trying to trace which one..bear with me). That he was pious and did good acts...but you shall have to search deep to find them..seeing as he's not a popular figure. Remember it is easy to perhaps not understand the motives, thoughts of someone who lived and died over 500 years ago. Its said he was the favourite brother to Margaret so he couldnt have been all bad.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 12:49:11
b.eileen25
What do you mean Paul..Margaret Pole was not Clarences' daughter?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 13:05:47
Johanne Tournier
Thanks, Stephen and Eileen! The portrait is fascinating! Thanks for the link and the further info!

I have been aware of this portrait at some time in the past, and at the time at least, it seemed to me that the barrel was a pointed allusion to the alleged manner of George's demise. Other than that, well, frankly, I can't imagine that barrel charms were common in that day, and I have to think it is an allusion  even if the truth is just that George was fond of Malmsey and was privileged to be allowed a tipple prior to his execution by beheading.

What is the connection (if any) between the Poles and the de la Poles? (Forgive question born of ignorance. = )

And what is your assessment of K.L. Clark's recent book, *The Nevills of Middleham: England's Most Powerful Family in the Wars of the Roses. I bought it at Foyle's when I was in London in December, but I haven't cracked it yet.

Johanne

I purchased
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []<mailto:>
Sent: June 27, 2017 8:03 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/


From: [mailto:]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.




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

2017-06-27 13:13:24
ricard1an
Yes I became disillusioned with Edward when I first read Eleanor The Secret Queen. Obviously he was a much better King than H6 but I am beginning to think it wasn't only his marriage to EW that made him make the wrong decisions, probably arrogance too. Richard then reaped the harvest and was made into a tyrant to suit Tudor propaganda.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 13:15:46
b.eileen25
Johanne I cannot see Margaret wearing a barrel charm in recognition that her father as an alcoholic. Well I can't see anyone do that frankly. Would it not be simiar to someone today wearing a beer can/bottle charm because ttheir dad was an alcoholic. It's a bit chavvy isn't it! On the same lines as someone wearing a syringe charm because their dad was a user...can't see it myself.
Glad you liked my blog.

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

2017-06-27 13:32:43
b.eileen25
Mary it may be simplistic but I wonder if part of the problem with Edward was that he won the throne at a young age..all of a sudden he was launched into a different world, with its hangers on, adulation and everything that when with it. Would it have been better if he had been younger and thus been more inclined to listen to advice/guidance (depending of course on who the advisers were) OR older when he would have been, perhaps, maturer and wiser. Certainly he was better than Henry Vl but Mickey Mouse would have been better than that one,,

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 13:32:45
Johanne Tournier
Hi, Eileen ý

Well, I agree with you. On the other hand, I think it would be morbid (in a way ý maybe I just canýt put myself in a 15th.-16th. Century mindset) to be referencing the manner of Georgeýs execution. But if itýs not either of those ý then what is it? Perhaps George had a healthy fondness for that product of the vine, and wasnýt actually an alcoholid? Because the barrel charm seems to me to be a distinctive item, and therefore likely there for a particular reason.

Iým interested, too, to hear what Paulýs explanation is that Margaret wasnýt Georgeýs daughter.

Johanne

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []<mailto:>
Sent: June 27, 2017 9:15 AM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Johanne I cannot see Margaret wearing a barrel charm in recognition that her father as an alcoholic. Well I can't see anyone do that frankly. Would it not be simiar to someone today wearing a beer can/bottle charm because ttheir dad was an alcoholic. It's a bit chavvy isn't it! On the same lines as someone wearing a syringe charm because their dad was a user...can't see it myself.

Glad you liked my blog.




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

2017-06-27 13:32:52
Karen O
    Has it occurred to anyone that Jane Shore got off so lightly and got a husband to boot because she was spying for Richard? I have wondered about this.
On Jun 27, 2017 4:14 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Interesting! Re who spilled the beans on him to Richard could it have come through the Jane Shore/Dorset route. Jane Shore's penance always seems very odd to me. H 

From: "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 19:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  I posted about Hastings previously but it seems to have got lost. Some years ago I read an article in the Bulletin about Hastings. He had the wardship  of Thomas Grey before Edward married Elizabeth  so that could be how Edward met her. Just a thought.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 13:49:07
b.eileen25
Johanne I guess it's got to be one or the other....either drowned in it or liked it. You can like a drink but that doesn't make you an alcoholic which is an illness. Incidentally there must have been an awful lot ot drinking going on by everybody,,,just depending on class whether it was watered down ale or good wine. Were they all wandering around inebriated or slightly merry?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 14:03:13
b.eileen25
Perhaps Margaret would have heard about the story that her father was drowned but knew that he had been executed in the conventual way I.e. Beheaded and this, the barrel charm, was her recognition both the story and of her father. I don't know...but I personally don't believe it was because George was a drunk. Of course if someone can direct me to a reliable and contemporary source....?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 14:57:41
Stephen

No connection, really.

The Poles (Pooles), such as Geoffrey who was Lady Margaret's father-in-law, were from Cheshire .

 

The de la Poles were from Hull . There was a family by the same name that moved from Normandy to Wales but Horrox assures me that they were not related.

The real connections are that Richard's sister married into one and his niece the other, whilst the Tudors persecuted both lines.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 13:06
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Thanks, Stephen and Eileen! The portrait is fascinating! Thanks for the link and the further info!

I have been aware of this portrait at some time in the past, and at the time at least, it seemed to me that the barrel was a pointed allusion to the alleged manner of George's demise. Other than that, well, frankly, I can't imagine that barrel charms were common in that day, and I have to think it is an allusion  even if the truth is just that George was fond of Malmsey and was privileged to be allowed a tipple prior to his execution by beheading.

What is the connection (if any) between the Poles and the de la Poles? (Forgive question born of ignorance. = )

And what is your assessment of K.L. Clark's recent book, *The Nevills of Middleham: England 's Most Powerful Family in the Wars of the Roses. I bought it at Foyle's when I was in London in December, but I haven't cracked it yet.

Johanne

I purchased
Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: 'Stephen' stephenmlark@... []<mailto: >
Sent: June 27, 2017 8:03 AM
To: <mailto: >
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/2017/05/28/is-this-the-face-of-clarences-daughter/


From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 11:42
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



HIlary..re the little barrel on Margaret Pole's portrait. I recently wrote a blog for the Murreyandblue page on this very subject so I'm up to speed as they say, I got in touch with the National portrait gallery who very kindly replied very fully and sent me a copy of Roy Strong's report. THis portrait was once known as MP but is now described as an unknown lady which, to me is baffling. It comes from the home of Winifred, Margaret's granddaughter. Just to give you the basics on the barrel...the barrel was once thought to have been added at a later date. But accordIng to a report obtained by Hazel Pierce, MPS biographer (Margaret Pole Loyalty Lineage and leadership) when the portrait was 'finally cleaned in 1973 the ermine spots did not disappear neither did the W or the barrel' which clearly point to them being original. Why would MP have had her portrait painted with a little barrel charm on her bracelet..well go figure as they say.



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

2017-06-27 15:26:41
ricard1an
Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 15:32:39
ricard1an
Stephen, I always thought that the de la Poles were descended from Gwenwynwyn and his son Owain Pwll or in English Owain of the Pool and then it became de la Pole. I believe Owain was rewarded by E1 because he fought for him against Llewellyn ap Gruffydd.
Mary

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

2017-06-27 15:39:39
b.eileen25
I never thought of that Mary....the sight of his father and brother's heads. He must have seen....but years later his mother's pleas for another one of his brothers fell on deaf ears..what went so badly wrong? We cannot even blame his disgraceful (seemingly) treatment of ET on the Wydevilles.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 15:48:33
Stephen

Other writers think so but Horrox does not.

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 27 June 2017 15:33
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Stephen, I always thought that the de la Poles were descended from Gwenwynwyn and his son Owain Pwll or in English Owain of the Pool and then it became de la Pole. I believe Owain was rewarded by E1 because he fought for him against Llewellyn ap Gruffydd.

Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 16:44:58
romanenemo
Eileen: I do realise I im going to be in a tiny minority here..but hey ho..I shall stand firm in my belief..that George did some bad stuff..and did some good stuff. That possibly he knew about the Talbot marriage..and that the Woodvilles were out to get him. That Shakespeare has done a hatchet job on him much as he did to his brother describing him as 'false, fleeting and perjured' which is quite kind compared to how he described Richard but thats another story.
Romane:One could add that 'fleeting and perjured' describes quite well his behavior with Edward, then with Warwick, and then again with Edward, according to facts historically documented. Whereas Richard having murdered his nephew, presented also as a fact by Shakespeare, is just an hypothesis, and not the most plausible one.On another hand, Richard has many good advocates now. Whereas George often appears as a rather cartoonish villain in many novels about his more famous brother. The problem is that we don't know many things about him, appart from his treasons of Edward and his quarrel with Richard concerning Anne, in which he certainly had a rather unsavory behavior.
Eileen:That he loved his wife and his children and tried to get his small son out of the country when everything started to implode around him. That he was physically a brave man. That there were those that were intent on causing mischief between him and Edward (Ankarette Twynho may have been involved here..this may be from one of JAH's book on this..still trying to trace which one..bear with me).
RomaneWhatever Ankarette Twynho might have been guilty of, hanging her in defiance of the king's justice and reading a protest in front of the Parliament were not the acts of a man in his good sense, and he certainly didn't consider enough his son's safety at that moment. Did he really have some kind of mental collapse ?Then why didn't Edward take pity of him ? Really, only the idea that he must have known the deadly secret of the pre-contract can explain such Edward's inhuman decision, considering that he was not usually a cruel man.

Eileen:That he was pious and did good acts...but you shall have to search deep to find them..seeing as he's not a popular figure. Remember it is easy to perhaps not understand the motives, thoughts of someone who lived and died over 500 years ago. Its said he was the favourite brother to Margaret so he couldnt have been all bad.
Romane:Margaret's preference for him is also explained by the fact he was by far the closest to her in age. And of course, in the novels, his charm makes many people, especially the women of his family, rather blind to his faults. But to Margaret's preference, we can add the fact that Edward forgave him so many times things that seemed unforgivable, and kept showering him with gifts. So he must have had some redeeming qualities.Some novels make Richard plead for George's life, in spite of all what he had done to him. I don't know if it's documented by reliable sources, but if so it could be added to George's credit. I would mean that in spite of their quarrel over Anne's inheritance, Richard still had also good memories with his brother.
Anyway, I agree that he's indeed an enigmatic and interesting figure. And because of his tragic death, it's possible to feel sympathy for him, in spite of the fact that we know much more about his faults than about his possible qualities.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 17:09:22
Hilary wrote:
Doesn't Margaret Pole's portrait show her with wine barrel jewellery? H (who doesn't believe the drunken or drowning bit either)


There is an interesting article on Murrey and Blue about this picture. It seems recent research revealed that the barrel was a later additon. And the portrait is now called "Portrait of a woman formerly known as Margaret Pole"
Eva,
who thinks there are easier ways to kill a man than heaving him in a barrel of expensive wine.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 17:12:40
Karen O
Hah! Richard drank watered wine first thing in the am before Mass.Maybe that's the scandal at the famous Christmas party. He had been drinking, Elizabeth had been drinking, everybody was drinking.
On Jun 27, 2017 8:49 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 

Johanne I guess it's got to be one or the other....either drowned in it or liked it.  You can like a drink but that doesn't make you an alcoholic which is an illness.  Incidentally there must have been an awful lot ot drinking going on by everybody,,,just depending on class whether it was watered down ale or good wine.  Were they all wandering around inebriated or slightly merry?  


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

2017-06-27 17:16:57
Karen O
    I cannot see how such childhood wounds could not have affected them all. Post traumatic stress, insecurity, grief and the constant threat of having to go to war yet again . The horrific things they must have witnessed. For myself I have never witnessed an act of violence in my life that was not on television.   Everyone seems to think Richard was this calm cool logical courageous warrior. It occurs to me this was a mask. He was taught to be stoic of course but what was underneath?
On Jun 27, 2017 10:26 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:
 

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or  visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.
Mary

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

2017-06-27 17:23:24
Pamela Bain
I agree, but there had been war and fighting for many years. Life was not quite as precious the, because of violence, disease, nat Rao disasters........ probably a lot of people were injured to tragedy.
On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

I cannot see how such childhood wounds could not have affected them all. Post traumatic stress, insecurity, grief and the constant threat of having to go to war yet again . The horrific things they must have witnessed. For myself I have never witnessed an act of violence in my life that was not on television. Everyone seems to think Richard was this calm cool logical courageous warrior. It occurs to me this was a mask. He was taught to be stoic of course but what was underneath?
On Jun 27, 2017 10:26 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-06-27 17:23:32
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: It is a huge mystery and I'd so hoped JAH would have devoted more time to it in his book on George. There are more ways of getting rid of someone than openly sticking a knife in their back. Perhaps it was open knowledge that George's Achilles heel was Isabel - he'd nearly lost her in that ship off Calais a few years' before? Doug here: Are you suggesting that Isabel was killed on the off-chance that George would, in response to her death, do something stupid and thus justify George's removal? Wouldn't that be a very round-about method of getting rid of George? Even if one presumes that George, and Isabel, knew about the Pre-Contract, wouldn't removing the one person George seemed to listen to (as best we can surmise from George's later actions) merely risk precipitating knowledge about the Pre-Contract coming out as George took his revenge by telling what he knew about the Pre-Contract? Especially if there was actual evidence that could be produced? Would Stillington perjure himself, risking his soul, if he had to occupy the witness box? Maybe I've just read too much Agatha Christie, but if my goal was to make George suffer, it'd have been because something he done, not something he might do. Hilary continued: Certainly the circumstances of her death are odd, I recall she had her child at Tewkesbury Abbey, seemed fine, came home and died a few weeks' later? Not like puerperal fever. Do I also recall that he sat with her for days afterwards refusing to let her be buried? Doug here: If Wikipedia is to be believed, Isabel had her child at the Abbey on/about 6 October, rested a while and then made her way home, where she died 22 December of that same year. I did a quick check on puerperal fever and, when it proved fatal, struck within two weeks of the woman giving birth  which certainly doesn't apply to Isabel. I also checked on septicemia and it also seems to have been fatal fairly quickly, certainly faster than nearly three months. I do find it interesting that the baby, named Richard, died 1 January, 1477. I presume the baby didn't die of starvation and that some local woman was found to feed him, but the question then arises: What did the baby Richard die of? And could his mother have died from the same cause? Hilary concluded: Ankarette was certainly old for a nurse (about 72) and she was the granddaughter of two celebrated murderers who got away with it - which would no doubt be brought to George's attention. After the Ankarette incident we move to Warwick (former home of Anne Beauchamp) where Burdet is not any old person, he's an ex High Sheriff. BTW the Twynyhos are from both Talbot and Stillington circles in Somerset. It all warrants a lot more investigation, and if it was planned, it was very cleverly planned. Doug here: Perhaps it was her age that recommended her to Isabel? Or possibly Ankarette was simply the one in charge of the women who assisted when Isabel was in labor? Could nurse be a euphemism for another word? Say, witch? Or whatever designation you prefer for a woman who knew herb lore and folk remedies? I do agree that that her pedigree might very well have been used against her, but what if Ankarette was merely a convenient person to toss under the bus, so to speak? IOW, whoever else was looking after Isabel when she returned home, deflected George's anger from her/himself (most likely a her) to Ankarette? She was a target of opportunity, so to speak. Doug Who still thinks George's problem/s (?) were a result of his jealousy/resentment of Edward. Why George felt that way, I don't know.
--
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

2017-06-27 17:25:22
b.eileen25
Eva..if you are referring to the recent article I wrote for murreyandblue Stephen has posted the link to it earlier today...see his message 52828 below.
A more recent examination has made the discovery that the barrel, the W, the ermine spots were in fact NOT later additions. Good news. After contacting the National Portrait gallery who were most helpful I am baffled as to why this portrait is still known as an 'unknown lady'. Anyway the article explains everything. Hope this helps. Eileen

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-27 17:48:44
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: //snip// Its said he was the favourite brother to Margaret so he couldnt have been all bad. Doug here: It's not unknown for a sibling, especially a sister, to favor the black sheep of the family. The question being, of course, just how dark his wool really was... 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

2017-06-27 17:55:00
Paul Trevor Bale
MP not George's daughter. Sorry a senior moment. I can't multi task and maybe was thinking Salisbury was her surname, stupid that I can be at times,
Put it down to my reading a biography of Robespierre in French at the same time!
Paul


Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 27 juin 2017 à 14:32, Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... [] <> a écrit :
>
> Hi, Eileen 
>
> Well, I agree with you. On the other hand, I think it would be morbid (in a way  maybe I just can't put myself in a 15th.-16th. Century mindset) to be referencing the manner of George's execution. But if it's not either of those  then what is it? Perhaps George had a healthy fondness for that product of the vine, and wasn't actually an alcoholid? Because the barrel charm seems to me to be a distinctive item, and therefore likely there for a particular reason.
>
> I'm interested, too, to hear what Paul's explanation is that Margaret wasn't George's daughter.
>
> Johanne
>
> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10
>
> From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []<mailto:>
> Sent: June 27, 2017 9:15 AM
> To: <mailto:>
> Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?
>
>
>
> Johanne I cannot see Margaret wearing a barrel charm in recognition that her father as an alcoholic. Well I can't see anyone do that frankly. Would it not be simiar to someone today wearing a beer can/bottle charm because ttheir dad was an alcoholic. It's a bit chavvy isn't it! On the same lines as someone wearing a syringe charm because their dad was a user...can't see it myself.
>
> Glad you liked my blog.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>

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

2017-06-27 17:55:24
Karen O
War and fighting for many years. It gets to the psyche.
On Jun 27, 2017 12:23 PM, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
 

I agree, but there had been war and fighting for many years. Life was not quite as precious the, because of violence, disease, nat Rao disasters........ probably a lot of people were injured to tragedy.
On Jun 27, 2017, at 11:17 AM, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    I cannot see how such childhood wounds could not have affected them all. Post traumatic stress, insecurity, grief and the constant threat of having to go to war yet again . The horrific things they must have witnessed. For myself I have never witnessed an act of violence in my life that was not on television.    Everyone seems to think Richard was this calm cool logical courageous warrior. It occurs to me this was a mask. He was taught to be stoic of course but what was underneath?
On Jun 27, 2017 10:26 AM, "maryfriend@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Agree Eileen. Another thing that has just occurred to me could he have been affected by all that he had experienced in his late teenage years. Nowadays, if your younger brother, who you were probably very fond of because you spent years living together away from family, had been brutally murdered and then you witness your father's head hanging from Mickelgate Bar, you would probably have been given counselling. Before that he had to flee the country with Warwick not knowing what had happened to the rest of his family. There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or  visited them every day. That said his later actions spelt doom for his family and for this country under the Tudors.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-06-27 17:55:59
b.eileen25
Doug wrote 'George's problems were a result of his jealousy/resentment of Edward,,why he felt that way I don't know..'
Eileen Possibly because he had been informed/found out about the precontract and/or did he believe the illegitimacy stories of Edward. THus he should be the rightful king. If so who told him..particularly the illegitimacy story. Did he ask his mother to clarify?
PLus Edward tried to stop him from marrying Isobel and later another lady...Marie of Burgundy?? I think. I would be pretty hacked off with my big brother thwarting my attempts to marry especially if I felt he was letting his wife and her family push his buttons. IT was a bit kettle calling pot black coming from Edward after his choice of bride and we all know where that led don't we. Again it's the human factor. Someone calmer might have had a different perception someone with a quick temper and it would be boom!
Heaven knows what problems these so called 'tiddle tattlers' and their insidious interefering, bad mouthing etc,,were causing between the pair adding fuel to the flames.
George believed someone had murdered Isobel and the baby by poisoning, whether this is true, and it could have been, or not what mattered is if George believed it.. George gets the blame because sometimes he acted in a bad way in other issues such as the division of Isobel and Anne's inheritance and I'm not going to excuse him for that but then he gets labelled as a trouble maker and the villain of the piece even though we know Edward was not as clean as the driven snow.
I just believe there are a lot of preconceived ideas about George which may be flawed. Eileen

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 17:57:04
Hilary Jones
Agree Eileen. I can't explain it. And wouldn't he want to know why she did it...like a few thumbscrews before just dragging her off all the way to Warwick from Somerset and hanging her? Do we know where the original story came from? This isn't an MB/Morton plot - it's got to be much closer to home. But why then? I'm honestly clueless on this one, but it seems he had to be got out of the way. Why? He'd been 'good' in France the previous year - Richard for once hadn't! The only thing I can come up with is knowledge of the Pre Contract and someone had found out that he knew.And yes, re your second point, it could well be so. You see it's very hard to get an idea through us lot and some 'authorities' (no not you Marie) might not like that. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 12:05
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Can you honestly see George dragging an innocent old woman out of her home and to Warwick and thence trial and execution for no good reason. Come on now this makes no sense. And then this act is used by some to imply George was either mad, bad or both..oh..or a drunk. George undoubtedly acted like a man of the times and sometimes was out of order but its largely forgotten that he did do many good acts in his time besides being very pious. I think he ended up fighting for his life as did his brother. It stinks..of Woodvilles.
By the by..is it because we argue and debate on here, raise questions etc., we have been divorced by you know who?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 17:57:57
b.eileen25
You nearly re-wrote History there Paul....lol..

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-27 18:02:06
Hilary Jones
You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 17:48
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Eileen wrote: //snip// Its said he was the favourite brother to Margaret so he couldnt have been all bad. Doug here: It's not unknown for a sibling, especially a sister, to favor the black sheep of the family. The question being, of course, just how dark his wool really was... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:08:32
b.eileen25
HIlary this has always been a fine bit of mud to throw at George - this poor old dear dragged out of her house, her daughter trailing behind her and then hung from the nearest post on a trumped up charge - just George spitting his dummy out. If i recall JAH wrote that this was not a spur of the moment thing as George had been to Ireland in the interim.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:12:15
Hilary Jones
I missed that. Must look it up
BTW George offered to marry Mary of Burgundy and Edward blocked that. It would have been a good match for England. Was it that Edward was actually jealous of George because he had created his own problems with EN and EW?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 6:08 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

HIlary this has always been a fine bit of mud to throw at George - this poor old dear dragged out of her house, her daughter trailing behind her and then hung from the nearest post on a trumped up charge - just George spitting his dummy out. If i recall JAH wrote that this was not a spur of the moment thing as George had been to Ireland in the interim.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:25:19
b.eileen25
Lol..one of the reasons George has a rotten reputation is because of the row over the inheritance of the Neville sisters. He got greedy...shock! horror! one can hardly believe it of a 15th century nobleman...and THEN he dumped the poor snivelling Anne into a hot and greasy kitchen, forcing her to wear rags and stir massive pots of hot gravy. . HOw he forced her to change into this garb and keep it on is a mystery. She must have stood out like a sore thumb but nevertheless we are told this is exactly what George thought was a good idea. This is clearly rubbish,,Anne was in actual fact a very plucky girl who made a decision about her life, legged it and got word to her Richard. The rest is history,

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

2017-06-27 18:28:45
Doug Stamate
Eileen, I hadn't thought about it, but your mentioning how Edward prevented George from marrying, twice yet, would give George an excellent reason for resenting his older brother, king or not. Until the birth of Edward of Westminster, George was Edward's heir. Edward's marriage to EW had only produced girls which, while it wouldn't completely debar them from inheriting the throne, would give George a one-up on being viewed as Edward's successor should anything happen to Edward. Perhaps George viewed his brother's refusal to allow him to marry as fear on Edward's part that a married George would produce a male heir, while he, Edward, only produced females? To top it all off, Edward hadn't even married into the nobility! Which might also explain George's actions in regards to his involvement with Warwick. If Warwick really wanted to be the Kingmaker, here was George, Edward's heir, ready and waiting (possibly even panting). Perhaps George's attitude in later years could best be explained by George never outgrowing from Edward's actions regarding a marriage for George, plus George's possible feelings that Edward had married beneath himself (with the result that Edward's son wasn't sufficiently well-born, as opposed to George's offspring)? And Isabel, of course, would have been the person who mollified George when his resentments over how things turned out. Once she died, George had no anchor. Doug Doug wrote 'George's problems were a result of his jealousy/resentment of Edward,,why he felt that way I don't know..' Eileen Possibly because he had been informed/found out about the precontract and/or did he believe the illegitimacy stories of Edward. THus he should be the rightful king. If so who told him..particularly the illegitimacy story. Did he ask his mother to clarify? PLus Edward tried to stop him from marrying Isobel and later another lady...Marie of Burgundy?? I think. I would be pretty hacked off with my big brother thwarting my attempts to marry especially if I felt he was letting his wife and her family push his buttons. IT was a bit kettle calling pot black coming from Edward after his choice of bride and we all know where that led don't we. Again it's the human factor. Someone calmer might have had a different perception someone with a quick temper and it would be boom! Heaven knows what problems these so called 'tiddle tattlers' and their insidious interefering, bad mouthing etc,,were causing between the pair adding fuel to the flames. George believed someone had murdered Isobel and the baby by poisoning, whether this is true, and it could have been, or not what mattered is if George believed it.. George gets the blame because sometimes he acted in a bad way in other issues such as the division of Isobel and Anne's inheritance and I'm not going to excuse him for that but then he gets labelled as a trouble maker and the villain of the piece even though we know Edward was not as clean as the driven snow. I just believe there are a lot of preconceived ideas about George which may be flawed.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-06-27 18:31:11
Hilary Jones
Are we winning you over Doug? :) :). H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, June 27, 2017, 6:28 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Eileen, I hadn't thought about it, but your mentioning how Edward prevented George from marrying, twice yet, would give George an excellent reason for resenting his older brother, king or not. Until the birth of Edward of Westminster, George was Edward's heir. Edward's marriage to EW had only produced girls which, while it wouldn't completely debar them from inheriting the throne, would give George a one-up on being viewed as Edward's successor should anything happen to Edward. Perhaps George viewed his brother's refusal to allow him to marry as fear on Edward's part that a married George would produce a male heir, while he, Edward, only produced females? To top it all off, Edward hadn't even married into the nobility! Which might also explain George's actions in regards to his involvement with Warwick. If Warwick really wanted to be the Kingmaker, here was George, Edward's heir, ready and waiting (possibly even panting). Perhaps George's attitude in later years could best be explained by George never outgrowing from Edward's actions regarding a marriage for George, plus George's possible feelings that Edward had married beneath himself (with the result that Edward's son wasn't sufficiently well-born, as opposed to George's offspring)? And Isabel, of course, would have been the person who mollified George when his resentments over how things turned out. Once she died, George had no anchor. Doug Doug wrote 'George's problems were a result of his jealousy/resentment of Edward,,why he felt that way I don't know..' Eileen Possibly because he had been informed/found out about the precontract and/or did he believe the illegitimacy stories of Edward. THus he should be the rightful king. If so who told him..particularly the illegitimacy story. Did he ask his mother to clarify? PLus Edward tried to stop him from marrying Isobel and later another lady...Marie of Burgundy?? I think. I would be pretty hacked off with my big brother thwarting my attempts to marry especially if I felt he was letting his wife and her family push his buttons. IT was a bit kettle calling pot black coming from Edward after his choice of bride and we all know where that led don't we. Again it's the human factor. Someone calmer might have had a different perception someone with a quick temper and it would be boom! Heaven knows what problems these so called 'tiddle tattlers' and their insidious interefering, bad mouthing etc,,were causing between the pair adding fuel to the flames. George believed someone had murdered Isobel and the baby by poisoning, whether this is true, and it could have been, or not what mattered is if George believed it.. George gets the blame because sometimes he acted in a bad way in other issues such as the division of Isobel and Anne's inheritance and I'm not going to excuse him for that but then he gets labelled as a trouble maker and the villain of the piece even though we know Edward was not as clean as the driven snow. I just believe there are a lot of preconceived ideas about George which may be flawed.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:31:28
romanenemo
Hilary:BTW George offered to marry Mary of Burgundy and Edward blocked that. It would have been a good match for England. Was it that Edward was actually jealous of George because he had created his own problems with EN and EW?

Romane:From what I read, Edward was afraid of what George might do as the ruler of such rich Burgundy. Like, for example, invading England in order to take his brother's place. Considering Clarence's record, I wouldn't blame Edward for being cautious. Anyway, Mary of Burgundy was no fool and she refused him on her own. Apparently she wanted a more powerful consort, and thought she had found him with Maximilian.What is strange is that apparently Edward suggested Anthony Woodville instead of George. Was he serious, or did he only want to humor Elizabeth ?

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:43:48
romanenemo
Eileen:Lol..one of the reasons George has a rotten reputation is because of the row over the inheritance of the Neville sisters. He got greedy...shock! horror! one can hardly believe it of a 15th century nobleman...and THEN he dumped the poor snivelling Anne into a hot and greasy kitchen, forcing her to wear rags and stir massive pots of hot gravy. . HOw he forced her to change into this garb and keep it on is a mystery. She must have stood out like a sore thumb but nevertheless we are told this is exactly what George thought was a good idea. This is clearly rubbish,,Anne was in actual fact a very plucky girl who made a decision about her life, legged it and got word to her Richard. The rest is history,
Romane:Yes, Anne forced to work as a kitchen maid, the barrel of Malmsey, and even Ankarette Twynho....As soon as George is concerned, the story often becomes completely outlandish. I wonder why. And what reliable sources we have.I completely agree with you, it's much more likely that Anne hid herself, maybe actually in a cookshop, and then sent word to Richard as soon as she could.But still, preventing Richard from marrying Anne, then disputing Anne and Richard the part of the Warwick and Beauchamp inheritance that was rightly theirs doesn't reflect well on George at all, for Richard was his brother. It's not the same as being greedy at the expense of an enemy, which was actually a very current behavior for the magnates of the time, as seen even with Richard himself. Besides, George should have been grateful already that Edward had forgiven him so much, instead of being extremely difficult again.I'm afraid George's rotten reputation is based upon a rather solid ground, whatever attenuating circumstances we can find.




---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Lol..one of the reasons George has a rotten reputation is because of the row over the inheritance of the Neville sisters. He got greedy...shock! horror! one can hardly believe it of a 15th century nobleman...and THEN he dumped the poor snivelling Anne into a hot and greasy kitchen, forcing her to wear rags and stir massive pots of hot gravy. . HOw he forced her to change into this garb and keep it on is a mystery. She must have stood out like a sore thumb but nevertheless we are told this is exactly what George thought was a good idea. This is clearly rubbish,,Anne was in actual fact a very plucky girl who made a decision about her life, legged it and got word to her Richard. The rest is history,


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 18:52:05
Johanne Tournier
LOL! Yes, that explains it! Whew! That's a relief! I thought things were going to be even more complicated than I had previously realized! =

Johanne

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: cherryripe.eileenb@... []<mailto:>
Sent: June 27, 2017 1:58 PM
To: <mailto:>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



You nearly re-wrote History there Paul....lol..




Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 18:53:50
b.eileen25
According to JAH there was a THIRD marriage for George turned down by Edward. This would have been a Scottish princess. "Edward IV directed his emissary to thank the Scottish king who 'desire a marriage to be had betwxit our brother of Clarence and a suster of the said king of Scots and another marriage also to be had between our sustre the duchess of Bourgonne and the duc of Albany his brothr' and promised that 'when we shal finde tyme convenable we shall feel their dispositions'. However he seems to have taken no action'. The Third Plantagenet p135.
JAH source is Original letters illustrative of .English History vol 1 (London 1825) ed H Ellis.

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

2017-06-27 18:57:27
b.eileen25
Doug is succumbing to our gentle persuasions.....I think.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 19:09:35
b.eileen25

This is what our old friend Crowland wrote on the matter of Edward disallowing the burgundy proposed match..(lifted from JAHs The Third Plantagenet- ....'lady Margaret who was more fond of her brother Clarence than of anyone else in the family devoted all her effort and intention to uniting in marriage Mary .....and Clarence whose wife had recently died. Such an exalted destiny for an ungrateful brother was not to the liking of the king, he therefore threw all the obstacles he could in the way of any such marriage taking place, he urged rAther that the heiress should be given as a wife to Maximilian the emperors son as it afterward happened.
The dukes indignation was probably further increased by this, each one now begun to look upon the other with not altogether brotherly eyes. You might have seen (as such men found in the courts of all princes) sycophants running to and from one side and the other carrying the words of both brothers backwards and forwards even if they had been spoken in the most secret chamber'. CRowland pp143-5.
It's clear from Crowland that as if the situation wasn't bad enough there were others stirring, loading the guns and letting others fire the bullets. What a nest of vipers,,

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

2017-06-27 20:07:02
justcarol67



Eileen wrote:

"Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason."

Carol responds:

One small point in favor of your hypothesis: George's (illegal?) executions of Ankarette and the man (can't think of his name) that George accused of poisoning baby Richard were not among the crimes listed in his attainder.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 20:35:16
justcarol67

Romane wrote:

"But maybe it's like the account we have from Mancini of Richard's behavior at Northampton and Stony Stratford. We have the actions and not the reasons. Hence a somehow disjointed narrative."
Carol responds:

In the case of Mancini, we have an imaginary dialogue in the humanist tradition (which we also see in Vergil and in even more distorted form in More). It's possible but not likely that Dr. Argentine was a witness to the events at Stony Stratford and passed on his memories of the conversation (distorted by bias and preconceptions), which Mancini then translated into a different language, but it's more likely that any dialogue involving Richard, Buckigham, and Edward V was conducted more discreetly with none of the Woodville contingent present. (IIRC, Mancini even got the geography of the journey wrong.)

At any rate, we can't take his account of Richard's behavior (words or actions) as accurate. And, of course, you're quite right about Mancini's not knowing the reasons for the arrests. He also didn't know about Richard's authority to do so. He thought that Richard held no offices!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 21:02:26
justcarol67
Johanne wrote:

"Very interesting. Why would Margaret have been wearing (?) a W? Do you have a link to the portrait, so we can check it out?"

Carol responds:

Just lost my post, so I'll try again. Someone else may already have provided a link to the portrait, but in case they haven't, here's an enlarged version. You can clearly see the wine barrel ornament dangling from her right wrist (which makes me wonder why anyone would question the identification--it has to be her).

She appears to be holding a dilapidated white rose or other flower. I don't see a W and don't know what it might signify if there is one.

Here's the link: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AYt-MHdBRac/UoC-4khPK8I/AAAAAAAABFI/BvaLK8vleR0/s1600/Unknown_woman,_formerly_known_as_Margaret_Pole,_Countess_of_Salisbury_from_NPG_retouched.jpg

If the link doesn't work try cut and paste, of just go to Google images and type in "Margaret Pole."

Carol

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 21:07:46
b.eileen25
Carol Margaret is holding a honeysuckle flower. The W stands for Warwick.
Scroll down to Stephens link for up to date info about this portrait.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-27 21:22:32
justcarol67

Johanne wrote:

"I think it would be morbid (in a way ý maybe I just canýt put myself in a 15th.-16th. Century mindset) to be referencing the manner of Georgeýs execution. But if itýs not either of those ý then what is it? Perhaps George had a healthy fondness for that product of the vine, and wasnýt actually an alcoholid? Because the barrel charm seems to me to be a distinctive item, and therefore likely there for a particular reason."

Carol responds:

First, I'm not sure why these question marks are showing up in place of apostrophes. Something to do with text encoding?

But, morbid though it seems to us, I'm sure that the wine barrel was Margaret's way of remembering her father. It appears that she resented his execution by her uncle, Edward IV. Wonder what EoY thought of the ornament, which in effect discredited her father as a fratricide? (Of course, Margaret couldn't do anything similar for her brother when he, too, was executed, this time by a Tudor.)

I've always wondered what Margaret thought of her other uncle, Richard. I suppose we'll never know.

Carol

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

2017-06-27 21:55:16
justcarol67
Mary wrote:

"There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day."

Carol responds:

This is one story for which we have a reliable source, the Paston Letters: "The Earl of March comes every day to see them" (to quote from memory. Margaret was staying with the Pastons, too, and included in the visits, but their mother had gone on to join their father after a few days.

By the way, I'm not sure that the assumption (from Kendall?) that George was Margaret's favorite brother is true, but if it is, it might stem from these early experiences. Unlike her older sisters, she was not married off as a child and so spent much of her time until she was almost fifteen with her two little brothers, George and Richard. (Edward and Edmund had left Fotheringhay for Ludlow when she was just eight or so.) She was closer to George than to Richard in age (three and a half as opposed to six and a half years older), so that might explain their (relative) closeness. Edward (and Edmund while he lived) was a virtual stranger (though the Paston visits suggest that the family were closer than might be supposed given the sending of the older boys to Ludlow) and Richard would be, in her view, almost a baby, just eight and a half when Edward became king.

Carol

George

2017-06-27 22:36:25
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Until the birth of Edward of Westminster, George was Edward's heir."

Carol responds:

I think this is the heart of the matter. He had been Edward's heir (presumptive?) for about eleven years and had become used to the idea. If Edward had married a suitable queen and had a son while George was still in his early teens or younger, George might have settled down to the role of magnate and king's brother, but the combination of the irregular Woodville marriage (whether he knew about ET or not) and the string of daughters would have led him to hold onto that hope.

It's a shame that Edmund was killed along with their father at Wakefield as he would have been the heir presumptive rather than George, whose hopes would never have been raised. (Of course, matters would have been different altogether if RoY had lived, but I'm assuming Edward as king and Edmund as next in line. George might never have rebelled and Edward might have had three brothers rather than one to deal with the aftermath of his death.)

Carol

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

2017-06-27 22:42:21
romanenemo

Carol:This is one story for which we have a reliable source, the Paston Letters: "The Earl of March comes every day to see them" (to quote from memory. Margaret was staying with the Pastons, too, and included in the visits, but their mother had gone on to join their father after a few days.By the way, I'm not sure that the assumption (from Kendall?) that George was Margaret's favorite brother is true, but if it is, it might stem from these early experiences. Unlike her older sisters, she was not married off as a child and so spent much of her time until she was almost fifteen with her two little brothers, George and Richard. (Edward and Edmund had left Fotheringhay for Ludlow when she was just eight or so.) She was closer to George than to Richard in age (three and a half as opposed to six and a half years older), so that might explain their (relative) closeness. Edward (and Edmund while he lived) was a virtual stranger (though the Paston visits suggest that the family were closer than might be supposed given the sending of the older boys to Ludlow) and Richard would be, in her view, almost a baby, just eight and a half when Edward became king.
Romane:I've just leant from Eileen's last post that Margaret having a special fondness for George is documented by the Crowland Chronicle. As apparently the author was quite close to power under Edward IV, and would have no special reason to lie about that, it might be true. Whether is was because they were close in age, or because he was so charming... BTW, what is the source for George being witty and charming ?
The Paston Letters are even a more reliable source. So we know that Edward IV was indeed very fond of both of his little brothers, at this time at least.
So when did things went wrong exactly between Edward and George ? It might have been some time before George's betrayal. I've read somewhere (but don't remember where, and it it's reliable) that when Richard was given his first commission of array, at only 11 years of age, George, who was 14 wasn't given any. If so, why ?
Of course, after George's betrayal, it seems quite normal that Edward would give him manors and lands, many of them in fact, but no high charge with great responsibilities, such as he bestowed on Richard.
But at 14, George hadn't done anything wrong yet. The explanation given by the author, as far as I remember, was that Edward had already assessed his brother's real worth. But maybe it was just that the two didn't get along well, even so early in George's life. And if George felt somehow set apart, it might explain partly his behavior, his endless dissatisfaction and greed, the same way Warwick's behavior can be explained not only by his (great) thirst for power, but also by his bitterness in front of Edward's ingratitude.In particular, it would explain his behavior with Richard concerning the Warwick and Beauchamp legacy. In George's eyes, maybe, if Richard had Edward's love and trust, he'd have to be the sole owner of the lands. Maybe it's a bit of both : Edward realized that George was made of less solid stuff than Richard, treated him with some contempt, and George's bitterness made him match Edward's worst expectations.



---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

Mary wrote:

"There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day."

Carol responds:

This is one story for which we have a reliable source, the Paston Letters: "The Earl of March comes every day to see them" (to quote from memory. Margaret was staying with the Pastons, too, and included in the visits, but their mother had gone on to join their father after a few days.

By the way, I'm not sure that the assumption (from Kendall?) that George was Margaret's favorite brother is true, but if it is, it might stem from these early experiences. Unlike her older sisters, she was not married off as a child and so spent much of her time until she was almost fifteen with her two little brothers, George and Richard. (Edward and Edmund had left Fotheringhay for Ludlow when she was just eight or so.) She was closer to George than to Richard in age (three and a half as opposed to six and a half years older), so that might explain their (relative) closeness. Edward (and Edmund while he lived) was a virtual stranger (though the Paston visits suggest that the family were closer than might be supposed given the sending of the older boys to Ludlow) and Richard would be, in her view, almost a baby, just eight and a half when Edward became king.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-27 22:52:43
justcarol67

Eileen wrote:


"This is what our old friend Crowland wrote on the matter of Edward disallowing the burgundy proposed match..(lifted from JAHs The Third Plantagenet- ....'lady Margaret who was more fond of her brother Clarence . . . .'"

Carol responds:

So that's our source for the fondness allegations? Not so sure I'd credit Croyland on this as he would have had little direct knowledge of Margaret. As for the sycophants running back and forth, the wording suggests to me that it's speculation. "You might have seen" is an expression that goes back to Thucydides or Herodotus (I forget which, maybe both) and does not actually indicate that the author was a witness to what he saw. Even the grief of Anne and Richard over the death of their son might not have been as publicly expressed as Croyland implies (though I have no doubt is was real and excruciating). I doubt he was in Nottingham Castle to witness it.

Carol


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 09:01:04
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol, two or three things - they were closest in age and grew up together (assumption), she dedicated the first printed book on Chess to him, and when they were in France in 1475 George and Richard rode out to pay her a special visit. I think there are other things too that don't come from Croyland. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 22:52
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Eileen wrote:


"This is what our old friend Crowland wrote on the matter of Edward disallowing the burgundy proposed match..(lifted from JAHs The Third Plantagenet- ....'lady Margaret who was more fond of her brother Clarence . . . .'"

Carol responds:

So that's our source for the fondness allegations? Not so sure I'd credit Croyland on this as he would have had little direct knowledge of Margaret. As for the sycophants running back and forth, the wording suggests to me that it's speculation. "You might have seen" is an expression that goes back to Thucydides or Herodotus (I forget which, maybe both) and does not actually indicate that the author was a witness to what he saw. Even the grief of Anne and Richard over the death of their son might not have been as publicly expressed as Croyland implies (though I have no doubt is was real and excruciating). I doubt he was in Nottingham Castle to witness it.

Carol




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

2017-06-28 09:11:22
Hilary Jones
Lots of things like your description of George were once (still are) written about Richard. And just like Richard they are assumptions, not evidenced. We don't know that George was by nature a treacherous character. He was charged with taking Richard to Utrecht at a very early age and did it well. We know he had reason to be unhappy because, just like Warwick, he had been treated extremely shabbily by Edward with regards to marriage. He was 20 which was old to marry for the heir.I think the lands thing is a diversion. If you look at the CPR Edward gave huge chunks of lands (most attainted) to all his family, including his sisters and his mother and of course the Woodvilles. What he was doing was keeping it in the family; they were caretaking it for him. As Ross says, a king should be above that. It proves Edward was always just another grabbing nobleman at heart. He was the one who grabbed more than any of them and it was actually a very nasty way of potentially playing one off against another.I think it's dangerous to cast people as good or bad. As Mary said a while ago we haven't walked in their shoes. We don't know who influenced them, what really drove them, what they really cared about. So we shouldn't criticise people for maligning Richard if we malign George. There's a lot to be investigated around him, as we said earlier. Sorry if this sounds hard - don't mean it to, but Shakespeare's 'false, fleeting, perjur'd' does still seem to rule. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 22:42
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Carol:This is one story for which we have a reliable source, the Paston Letters: "The Earl of March comes every day to see them" (to quote from memory. Margaret was staying with the Pastons, too, and included in the visits, but their mother had gone on to join their father after a few days.By the way, I'm not sure that the assumption (from Kendall?) that George was Margaret's favorite brother is true, but if it is, it might stem from these early experiences. Unlike her older sisters, she was not married off as a child and so spent much of her time until she was almost fifteen with her two little brothers, George and Richard. (Edward and Edmund had left Fotheringhay for Ludlow when she was just eight or so.) She was closer to George than to Richard in age (three and a half as opposed to six and a half years older), so that might explain their (relative) closeness. Edward (and Edmund while he lived) was a virtual stranger (though the Paston visits suggest that the family were closer than might be supposed given the sending of the older boys to Ludlow) and Richard would be, in her view, almost a baby, just eight and a half when Edward became king.
Romane:I've just leant from Eileen's last post that Margaret having a special fondness for George is documented by the Crowland Chronicle. As apparently the author was quite close to power under Edward IV, and would have no special reason to lie about that, it might be true. Whether is was because they were close in age, or because he was so charming... BTW, what is the source for George being witty and charming ?
The Paston Letters are even a more reliable source. So we know that Edward IV was indeed very fond of both of his little brothers, at this time at least.
So when did things went wrong exactly between Edward and George ? It might have been some time before George's betrayal. I've read somewhere (but don't remember where, and it it's reliable) that when Richard was given his first commission of array, at only 11 years of age, George, who was 14 wasn't given any. If so, why ?
Of course, after George's betrayal, it seems quite normal that Edward would give him manors and lands, many of them in fact, but no high charge with great responsibilities, such as he bestowed on Richard.
But at 14, George hadn't done anything wrong yet. The explanation given by the author, as far as I remember, was that Edward had already assessed his brother's real worth. But maybe it was just that the two didn't get along well, even so early in George's life. And if George felt somehow set apart, it might explain partly his behavior, his endless dissatisfaction and greed, the same way Warwick's behavior can be explained not only by his (great) thirst for power, but also by his bitterness in front of Edward's ingratitude.In particular, it would explain his behavior with Richard concerning the Warwick and Beauchamp legacy. In George's eyes, maybe, if Richard had Edward's love and trust, he'd have to be the sole owner of the lands. Maybe it's a bit of both : Edward realized that George was made of less solid stuff than Richard, treated him with some contempt, and George's bitterness made him match Edward's worst expectations.



---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :

Mary wrote:

"There is a story that when he returned to London after Mortimers Cross he was very good to George and Richard wrote to them or visited them every day."

Carol responds:

This is one story for which we have a reliable source, the Paston Letters: "The Earl of March comes every day to see them" (to quote from memory. Margaret was staying with the Pastons, too, and included in the visits, but their mother had gone on to join their father after a few days.

By the way, I'm not sure that the assumption (from Kendall?) that George was Margaret's favorite brother is true, but if it is, it might stem from these early experiences. Unlike her older sisters, she was not married off as a child and so spent much of her time until she was almost fifteen with her two little brothers, George and Richard. (Edward and Edmund had left Fotheringhay for Ludlow when she was just eight or so.) She was closer to George than to Richard in age (three and a half as opposed to six and a half years older), so that might explain their (relative) closeness. Edward (and Edmund while he lived) was a virtual stranger (though the Paston visits suggest that the family were closer than might be supposed given the sending of the older boys to Ludlow) and Richard would be, in her view, almost a baby, just eight and a half when Edward became king.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-28 09:13:30
Hilary Jones
I've just recalled - didn't Paul say that George went on a wine buying trip to France with Buckingham? Is that so Paul - if you're out there? H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 21:22
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Johanne wrote:

"I think it would be morbid (in a way ý maybe I just canýt put myself in a 15th.-16th. Century mindset) to be referencing the manner of Georgeýs execution. But if itýs not either of those ý then what is it? Perhaps George had a healthy fondness for that product of the vine, and wasnýt actually an alcoholid? Because the barrel charm seems to me to be a distinctive item, and therefore likely there for a particular reason."

Carol responds:

First, I'm not sure why these question marks are showing up in place of apostrophes. Something to do with text encoding?

But, morbid though it seems to us, I'm sure that the wine barrel was Margaret's way of remembering her father. It appears that she resented his execution by her uncle, Edward IV. Wonder what EoY thought of the ornament, which in effect discredited her father as a fratricide? (Of course, Margaret couldn't do anything similar for her brother when he, too, was executed, this time by a Tudor.)

I've always wondered what Margaret thought of her other uncle, Richard. I suppose we'll never know.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-28 09:14:18
Hilary Jones
Thanks for all your info and the article on this Eileen. It was very informative and good. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 21:07
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Carol Margaret is holding a honeysuckle flower. The W stands for Warwick.
Scroll down to Stephens link for up to date info about this portrait.

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

2017-06-28 09:20:55
Hilary Jones
Interesting Carol! As I recall Roger Twynyho petitioned Edward for a formal pardon for her. I read it in the CPR I think? H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 20:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?




Eileen wrote:

"Ankarette Twynhoe...I dont think she may have been as innocent as some believe. I have read recently ..and I cannot think where at this moment in time..that she may have been one those that were running around tiddle tattling and causing/stirring trouble between Clarence and Edward. I cannot honestly believed that George would have singled her out and executed her for no good reason."

Carol responds:

One small point in favor of your hypothesis: George's (illegal?) executions of Ankarette and the man (can't think of his name) that George accused of poisoning baby Richard were not among the crimes listed in his attainder.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-28 09:23:47
b.eileen25
Hilary..your welcome.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 09:27:00
Hilary Jones
Absolutely!! It's like Cinderella, just daft. And any fifteenth century English gentleman who wasn't greedy for land could probably only be found in a monastery. Notice I didn't say the Church - they were as bad as the rest. But all those IPMs must have kept the employment rate high. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 27 June 2017, 18:25
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Lol..one of the reasons George has a rotten reputation is because of the row over the inheritance of the Neville sisters. He got greedy...shock! horror! one can hardly believe it of a 15th century nobleman...and THEN he dumped the poor snivelling Anne into a hot and greasy kitchen, forcing her to wear rags and stir massive pots of hot gravy. . HOw he forced her to change into this garb and keep it on is a mystery. She must have stood out like a sore thumb but nevertheless we are told this is exactly what George thought was a good idea. This is clearly rubbish,,Anne was in actual fact a very plucky girl who made a decision about her life, legged it and got word to her Richard. The rest is history,



Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 12:05:25
romanenemo

Hilary :

Lots of things like your description of George were once (still are) written about Richard. And just like Richard they are assumptions, not evidenced.

Romane :

I what you call my assumptions' are what I said about Edward maybe realizing that George was made of less solid stuff than Richard, and then giving him less responsibilities even at an early age, I admit that these are pure speculations.

But please notice that I made as well the hypothesis that maybe the two just didn't get along, and that it could be Edward's early and not justified distrust that could have pushed George toward Warwick's side. As you say, all this is pure speculation, coming from my surprise at the discovery that apparently Richard was given a commission of array at 11, and George none. Maybe George had good reasons to feel put aside.

On another hand, George's betrayal of his brother and king, and then of Warwick at a critical moment, are facts, not speculations.

Richard might have killed his nephew. He might have betrayed his oath to Edward V if the pre-contract never existed. But we are not sure, it's a matter of opinion. Those who pretend to be sure that he did kill the boys are maligning him because they don't take some clues into account, and above all because they transform a possibility into a fact.

George's many changes of side are facts. Whatever Edward's wrongs against him, he indeed broke the moral code of that time by betraying his king, and then his new ally. That many of the magnates of the time did exactly the same doesn't change the judgement that was passed upon such a conduct. And as for what drove him on this particular occasion, it's difficult to avoid the fact that he abandoned Warwick once he was no longer the one that his fatherin-law planned to crown. So, the same way I think that the word monster' would perfectly define Richard, had it been proved that he killed his nephews, the same way, I m afraid I still think that fleeting' and perjur'd' are a rather accurate definition of Clarence, in these occasions at least. I would not agree with false', though. If George had been more skillful at dissembling, he might not have ended up as he did.

Whatever, I completely agree that the one who doesn't take enough blame regarding George's bad choices and ultimate fate is Edward. It is indeed strange that he hadn't yet provided a good marriage for his brother when he forbade him to marry Isabel Neville, because of his quarrel with Warwick, because of his own catastrophic decision to marry Elizabeth. And nothing, even the secret of the pre-contract, can justify Edward's final decision to put his own brother to death, and not only according to our own moral code, so different from the one of this time. Even in Middle Age, fratricide, like child murder, horrified people.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 12:19:12
b.eileen25
Land, property were their stocks and shares and important, I note that Clarence was not fussed about Richard marrying Anne, he said something like he can have the lady it was just the inheritance he was concerned with. Yes it was greedy and one can't condone that only to say it was normal behaviour at the time. Look at the shocking way Edward fleeced the Mowbrays out of what should have been their legal inheritance if and when Anne Mowbray died, which indeed she did. It all passed to Richard of Shrewsbury. I believe he changed laws to enable this. Her mother Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot, EBs sister, seems to have taken a downward spiral retiring to the.Minories, where she was in company of other ladies who had lost everything in the Wars of the Roses. William Hampton has written an excellent article on this Ladies of the Minories,
Richard seems to have been unusual for the times in his quest for fairness for all. I think he was a rarity rather than the norm.


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 12:58:13
b.eileen25
Good points on here from both HIlary and Romane regarding George for whom yes, I do have a soft spot,
I really just wanted to make the point that because George behaved, prima facie, badly at times, we really don't know all the minutiae but having said thwt I'm not seeking to defend the indefensible. I just really want to point out that SOME of the charges against him are nonsensical and unfounded including that he was a drunk. I asked for someone to indicate to me where this was said of him by his contemporaries. George was only 28ish when he was executed and perhaps he was a hot head ..I'm sure he was. I also want people to wake up and smell the coffee about the implausible story that he forced Anne into the role of a kitchen maid.
Yes he did betray Edward and went over to Warwick..well you know maybe Edward asked for it. Richard stuck by Edward, his loyalty is famous.,but that doesn't mean Edward had deserved Richard's loyalty.
As for AT well...what went on there? But clearly something did make George act the way he did, Interestingly one of the two others that were supposed to have been arrested along with AT, Roger Tocotes, may have had some sort of link with the Wydevilles and John Morton suggests JAH. . HIcks described Tocotes as the most improbable person for George to have turned on.,so what was it that George found out? Can we put all this down to George merely being mentally unstable at the time?

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 13:22:11
romanenemo
Eileen:Yes it was greedy and one can't condone that only to say it was normal behaviour at the time. Look at the shocking way Edward fleeced the Mowbrays out of what should have been their legal inheritance if and when Anne Mowbray died, which indeed she did. It all passed to Richard of Shrewsbury. I believe he changed laws to enable this.

Romane:It's all the more shocking that it was John Howard who would have inherited, had not Edward married Anne Mowbray to his son and changed the law. It seems that greed for land was indeed the norm. But it was not the same to fleece an enemy, or a loyal follower like Howard, or a close kin, like in the quarrel between George and Richard. No doubt that Edward's ingratitude toward Howard was judged severely and seen as the result of the influence of the greedy Woodvilles. And that George's stubborn refusal to let Richard have his part of the Warwick and Beauchamp heritage was frowned upon as well. The moral code of the time was different, but there was one nonetheless.
---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Land, property were their stocks and shares and important, I note that Clarence was not fussed about Richard marrying Anne, he said something like he can have the lady it was just the inheritance he was concerned with. Yes it was greedy and one can't condone that only to say it was normal behaviour at the time. Look at the shocking way Edward fleeced the Mowbrays out of what should have been their legal inheritance if and when Anne Mowbray died, which indeed she did. It all passed to Richard of Shrewsbury. I believe he changed laws to enable this. Her mother Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot, EBs sister, seems to have taken a downward spiral retiring to the.Minories, where she was in company of other ladies who had lost everything in the Wars of the Roses. William Hampton has written an excellent article on this Ladies of the Minories,
Richard seems to have been unusual for the times in his quest for fairness for all. I think he was a rarity rather than the norm.



Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 13:49:14
romanenemo
Eileen:I just really want to point out that SOME of the charges against him are nonsensical and unfounded including that he was a drunk. I asked for someone to indicate to me where this was said of him by his contemporaries. George was only 28ish when he was executed and perhaps he was a hot head ..I'm sure he was. I also want people to wake up and smell the coffee about the implausible story that he forced Anne into the role of a kitchen maid.
Romane:I completely agree, Eileen. And on that point I'm in agreement with Hilary as well: George has been much maligned too, in the sense that because of some of the unsavory things he actually did, other completely unproved charges were added against him. In particular, I'd really like to know where is reputation as a drunk comes from, what author spoke of that first. And the story of him hiding Anne as a kitchen maid is completely ridiculous.
Eileen:Yes he did betray Edward and went over to Warwick..well you know maybe Edward asked for it. Richard stuck by Edward, his loyalty is famous.,but that doesn't mean Edward had deserved Richard's loyalty.
Romane:We can't know if Edward asked for it or not. There are just clues that he might have. As for Richard, we don't know what he might have thought of Edward's most disputable decisions. Maybe he was shocked by many of them. Considering what was apparently his own moral code, one can easily assume that he was. But Edward was the anointed king, to whom he had sworn allegiance. That was enough for him. Was he a man of the past, abiding the chivalric code a few years before Machiavelli wrote 'The Prince' ? Or on the contrary, a very modern man, understanding the importance of respecting a law written for everyone, and obeying the government, whatever it was, instead of pursuing feudal quarrels ?Anyway he was, indeed, a rarity in his time.
Eileen:As for AT well...what went on there? But clearly something did make George act the way he did, Interestingly one of the two others that were supposed to have been arrested along with AT, Roger Tocotes, may have had some sort of link with the Wydevilles and John Morton suggests JAH. . HIcks described Tocotes as the most improbable person for George to have turned on.,so what was it that George found out? Can we put all this down to George merely being mentally unstable at the time?

Romane:We can't know if AK had actually done something. But as someone already pointed out her, it's difficult to see why the Woodvilles would have wanted to poison Isabel and her second son. What would have been in it for them ?

---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

Good points on here from both HIlary and Romane regarding George for whom yes, I do have a soft spot,
I really just wanted to make the point that because George behaved, prima facie, badly at times, we really don't know all the minutiae but having said thwt I'm not seeking to defend the indefensible. I just really want to point out that SOME of the charges against him are nonsensical and unfounded including that he was a drunk. I asked for someone to indicate to me where this was said of him by his contemporaries. George was only 28ish when he was executed and perhaps he was a hot head ..I'm sure he was. I also want people to wake up and smell the coffee about the implausible story that he forced Anne into the role of a kitchen maid.
Yes he did betray Edward and went over to Warwick..well you know maybe Edward asked for it. Richard stuck by Edward, his loyalty is famous.,but that doesn't mean Edward had deserved Richard's loyalty.
As for AT well...what went on there? But clearly something did make George act the way he did, Interestingly one of the two others that were supposed to have been arrested along with AT, Roger Tocotes, may have had some sort of link with the Wydevilles and John Morton suggests JAH. . HIcks described Tocotes as the most improbable person for George to have turned on.,so what was it that George found out? Can we put all this down to George merely being mentally unstable at the time?

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 14:16:46
ricard1an
I don't think that we are ever going to know exactly what happened but there is probably more to it than we have been led to believe. Like you Eileen I think there is more to AT than meets the eye. If Isabel had been poisoned would medical expertise in those days know that she had been poisoned? There is the story about George sending E of W to Ireland for safety and what if he was successful in doing that? He must have had a reason or was he just paranoid about the Woodvilles and their hold over Edward and did he know about Eleanor Talbot? So many questions.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 15:37:29
b.eileen25
Agree with you Mary...

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

2017-06-28 18:30:33
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.
--
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] Re: Stilli

2017-06-28 18:42:27
Karen O
*not that that was about love* is the caveat I always get about the subject of their marriages. If he was devoted didn't he Iove her?
On Jun 28, 2017 1:30 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

      Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :)   Seems Mr Shakespeare has won.  Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire.  I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB .....   Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-28 18:44:53
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Are we winning you over Doug? :) :). Not really. While I'm not up on the reasons for Edward opposing the Burgundian match for George, Edward's opposition to George marrying Isabel makes perfect sense. Edward would be replacing one Kingmaker, Warwick, with another potential one, his brother George. I also view both marriage ideas as nothing but attempts by George to gain power that wouldn't be dependent on his brother. And, for whatever reason/s, Edward didn't want George to be in such a position. The result, of course, was that, every action by Edward to limit his brother only caused George to try even harder. Which led to George's treason in 1469. 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} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-28 18:57:30
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Doug is succumbing to our gentle persuasions.....I think. Have to reply in the negative here. It's not that I don't think George didn't have any good qualities; it's more a case those qualities not being enough to compensate for what George actually did. I'm not sure how valid that accusation of compassing the king's death in 1477 was, but George certainly compassed his brother's death in 1469 when he offered himself to Warwick as an alternative to Edward because, if Warwick supported George and successfully put George on the throne, Edward's death was a forgone conclusion. It'd be way too dangerous to keep Edward alive. Something that certainly should have occurred to George; and likely also occurred to Edward. Which would go a long way in explaining, and understanding, Edward's later treatment of George. Doug


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

Re: George

2017-06-28 19:07:01
Doug Stamate
Carol wrote::
"I think this is the heart of the matter. He had been Edward's heir
(presumptive?) for about eleven years and had become used to the idea. If
Edward had married a suitable queen and had a son while George was still in
his early teens or younger, George might have settled down to the role of
magnate and king's brother, but the combination of the irregular Woodville
marriage (whether he knew about ET or not) and the string of daughters would
have led him to hold onto that hope.
It's a shame that Edmund was killed along with their father at Wakefield as
he would have been the heir presumptive rather than George, whose hopes
would never have been raised. (Of course, matters would have been different
altogether if RoY had lived, but I'm assuming Edward as king and Edmund as
next in line. George might never have rebelled and Edward might have had
three brothers rather than one to deal with the aftermath of his death."

Doug here:
I hadn't added up the years George was Edward's heir, but being in that
position for such a lengthy period would go a long way in explaining some of
what George did in 1469. Don't know if it's enough to balance it out,
though...
The deaths of Richard, Duke of York and Edmund, Earl of Rutland were
definitely a loss. There'd likely have been none of Edward's clandestine
"marriages," or at least they wouldn't have caused the problems they did!
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} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2017-06-28 19:17:22
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Doug.the story that George was drowned in a butt of malmsey - which may be true - has led some people to believe that the story of death by wine alluded to the fact that George liked a drink and/or was an alcoholic. This isnt necessarily true and I dont buy into this at all.  Doug here: Perhaps it got started from George's last meal? Either that or possibly George was allowed to brace himself for his execution with a few quick ones? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 19:17:45
romanenemo
I couldn't agree more, Doug.

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

Hilary wrote:You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... Doug here:It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait.My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel?George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward.Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind.George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death.George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions.DougWho really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-28 19:20:34
b.eileen25
Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-28 19:22:22
Hilary Jones
Despair not - there's always another day :). H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 7:20 pm, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....

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

2017-06-28 19:28:00
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"We don't know that George was by nature a treacherous character. He was charged with taking Richard to Utrecht at a very early age and did it well."

Carol responds:

It's very unlikely that the two children were unescorted. I think Kendall's guess that they were accompanied by John Skelton, Esq., is probably correct. On October 16, 1461, Edward granted Skelton the office of Surveyor of Scrutiny in the port of London for good service to himself and his brothers (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1461-67, p. 52). What better service could he have rendered them than keeping them safe in a foreign country? (I'm sure that George tried to be brave and comfort his little brother, but he could hardly have provided them both with a ship or food or shelter.)

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 19:46:53
justcarol67
Romane wrote:

"I still think that fleeting' and perjur'd' are a rather accurate definition of Clarence, in these occasions at least. I would not agree with false', though. If George had been more skillful at dissembling, he might not have ended up as he did."

Carol responds:

I always thought that "fleeting" just meant that he wasn't on the scene long--he appears and disappears, giving us a fleeting glimpse of him before he's executed at age twenty-eight.

Bur "perjured" I think we can all agree with. And I would say he was "false," too, in the sense of disloyal, false to his allegiance (and to his erstwhile friends, Edward's enemies). I don't dislike George. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. (As Kendall says of both George and Richard, "It is hard to be the brother of a king.") But whatever his motives and however unfair to him Edward was in some instances, he did commit treason more than once, and only being the king's brother (and the pleas of Cecily, Margaret, Stillington, and others) saved his life the first time around. Then, again, if he hadn't been the king's brother, he wouldn't have been embroiled in all those schemes in the first place. Poor George. And poor Edward. I'm sure he didn't want to execute his own brother. And poor Richard, caught between them and unable to help George. Sad all around.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-28 19:57:48
Doug Stamate
Gave it a good try, though...

Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....




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



Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-28 20:00:11
Hilary Jones
Just have to dig that bit harder Doug :) :) H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, 7:57 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Gave it a good try, though...

Hilary...um...we didn't win Doug over....

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



Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 20:03:27
Doug Stamate
Carol wrote::
//snip//
"I don't dislike George. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. (As Kendall
says of both George and Richard, "It is hard to be the brother of a king.")
But whatever his motives and however unfair to him Edward was in some
instances, he did commit treason more than once, and only being the king's
brother (and the pleas of Cecily, Margaret, Stillington, and others) saved
his life the first time around. Then, again, if he hadn't been the king's
brother, he wouldn't have been embroiled in all those schemes in the first
place. Poor George. And poor Edward. I'm sure he didn't want to execute his
own brother. And poor Richard, caught between them and unable to help
George. Sad all around."

That exactly sums up my feelings towards George! Especially that
third-from-last sentence!
Doug


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

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 20:15:44
romanenemo
Ditto

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 20:26:05
b.eileen25
George to me was like a firework shooting through the sky throwing sparkles everywhere and then landing back on the earth with a thud before spluttering out and dying,,,I think he was very human..in that he done good things, loved, made mistake, bad decisions..just human,

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-28 20:49:18
Eileen- Yes, I was referrung to your article. Thank you for the clarification about the barrel and the ermine spots and the W not being later additions. I obviosly got it wrong.
Eva

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 20:54:11
justcarol67

Romane wrote:

"And the story of him hiding Anne as a kitchen maid is completely ridiculous."
Carol responds:

Blame Croyland. Here's his version of the story:

"After [Edward of Lancaster] was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."

I suspect that most of the story is true, including George's views on the matter, except that Anne must have concealed herself and contacted Richard, a possibility that seems not to have occurred to Croyland (who seems to think of women in general as frivolous, shallow creatures). I dislike "craftiness" as applied to Richard. A better word would be "cleverness" if he did indeed discover her hiding place without her help, which seems unlikely.

Carol

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

2017-06-28 21:07:40
justcarol67

Doug wrote:
"Doug"Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really."

Carol responds:

Luckily for Shakespeare, there was just enough material (fact and legend) available on George to make him an interesting, semi-sympathetic character. (Does he even deal with George's treason in the Henry plays? I've forgotten. I do remember that he makes both George and Richard old enough to have fought at Towton and Wakefield and Edmund a child of twelve. And, of course, George becomes more Richard's victim than Edward's.)

By the way, Edward IV (like Edward V and Henry VII) doesn't even rate a play with his own name, whereas poor feeble-minded Henry VI rates three.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-28 21:18:00
b.eileen25
Eva...your welcome.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-28 21:57:49
romanenemo
Carol:I suspect that most of the story is true, including George's views on the matter, except that Anne must have concealed herself and contacted Richard, a possibility that seems not to have occurred to Croyland (who seems to think of women in general as frivolous, shallow creatures). I dislike "craftiness" as applied to Richard. A better word would be "cleverness" if he did indeed discover her hiding place without her help, which seems unlikely.

Romane:I suspect that most of us agree that it's much more likely that Anne had hidden herself, yes. Even if Anne had been a complete pushover, we can hardly imagine why she would have remained at the cookshop if it was George's idea to hide her there. But if she fled, that doesn't reflect well on George, because it would mean that he must have bullied her quite a lot, or even threatened her.But we don't know if Anne and Richard had an understanding before she disappeared. We don't know when he saw her after she was brought back to London with Margaret of Anjou, and what were their feelings for each other.It seems rather likely, though, that they liked each other. As a Dowager, Anne didn't have to marry anyone if she didn't want to, and George would have been only too happy to oblige if she had chosen to take the veil (maybe he wanted to force her to do that, and that's why she fled). As for Richard, even if, having received Middleham from Edward, he already had in mind to become 'Lord of the North', and if Anne's connection there could be useful to him, he could have married another heiress, of even a foreign princess, (not an elder sister, but a second or third daughter maybe). Without having to fight so bitterly his stubborn brother.Anyway, it's difficult to know if Anne sent word to Richard, because she already considered him as an ally, or even her future husband, or if he found her on his own.It's nice to imagine a rather romantic story, with Anne as the damsel in distress, Richard as the knight in shining armor, and George as the villain of the play, and one have to admit that the way the CC tell the tale encourage us in that direction. But there are a lot of missing pieces in the puzzle.

---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :


Romane wrote:

"And the story of him hiding Anne as a kitchen maid is completely ridiculous."
Carol responds:

Blame Croyland. Here's his version of the story:

"After [Edward of Lancaster] was slain at the battle of Tewkesbury, Richard, duke of Gloucester, sought the said Anne in marriage. This proposal, however, did not suit the views of his brother, the duke of Clarence, who had previously married the eldest daughter of the same earl. Such being the case, he caused the damsel to be concealed, in order that it might not be known by his brother where she was; as he was afraid of a division of the earl's property, which he wished to come to himself alone in right of his wife, and not to be obliged to share it with any other person. Still however, the craftiness of the duke of Gloucester, so far prevailed, that he discovered the young lady in the city of London disguised in the habit of a cookmaid; upon which he had her removed to the sanctuary of St. Martin's."

I suspect that most of the story is true, including George's views on the matter, except that Anne must have concealed herself and contacted Richard, a possibility that seems not to have occurred to Croyland (who seems to think of women in general as frivolous, shallow creatures). I dislike "craftiness" as applied to Richard. A better word would be "cleverness" if he did indeed discover her hiding place without her help, which seems unlikely.

Carol

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

2017-06-29 11:24:01
Paul Trevor Bale
I agree with you Doug, George may have been handsome and charming, but he was also definitely unstable, selfish, and always looking for the main chance.
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 28 juin 2017 à 19:30, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 13:41:19
Hilary Jones
I was thinking overnight we perhaps need to look at his in a different way ,so bear with me.When someone on here discusses those who rebelled against HT like Lincoln we don't call them traitors, we call them heroes because they're rebelling against the person who killed Richard and who actually wasn't very nice either.George and Warwick, who were treated pretty shoddily by Edward (as was Montague, I forgot him) are accused of treason. Why? Is it because we're Ricardians and they didn't do the same things as Richard? Now Richard was quite young and idealistic at this point and I think we'd agree that he continued to have an over-optimistic view of the character of some people. I think most of us would also agree that Edward wasn't a very nice person and, nice or not, he'd put the whole kingdom in jeopardy because of a stupid marriage and probably a stupid Pre Contract to boot. Why does he deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person.I think it's all to do with the Great Tudor Fib which has been writing history since 1485. Edward, the father of EOY, must be the golden monarch so that HT can sweep in, clear the dreadful Richard away, and restore England to its glory under Edward. He can't of course mention that Edward was a usurper and that ROY was an ambitious agitator who wanted to sweep Henry VI out of the way for the good of the country. Yes Henry was periodically ill but he had a wife, a Council and a son who would soon come of age. I wonder how often the old Lancastrians in HT's court had to bite their lip when the Lancastrian age, like Richard's was re-presented as a dark, inefficient period. It wasn't Henry VI's fault that we lost France, the venture was doomed before Henry V set foot there.And George and Warwick are caught up in all this. They dared to rebel against England's saviour king, who just happened to be HT's father-in-law. The history books have been written like this ever since, with the one exception of Ross who dared to start taking Edward apart. Sometimes I wish we could throw them all away and start again. And that would help other people, like MOA and Edward of Lancaster, get a just hearing too. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Carol wrote::
//snip//
"I don't dislike George. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. (As Kendall
says of both George and Richard, "It is hard to be the brother of a king.")
But whatever his motives and however unfair to him Edward was in some
instances, he did commit treason more than once, and only being the king's
brother (and the pleas of Cecily, Margaret, Stillington, and others) saved
his life the first time around. Then, again, if he hadn't been the king's
brother, he wouldn't have been embroiled in all those schemes in the first
place. Poor George. And poor Edward. I'm sure he didn't want to execute his
own brother. And poor Richard, caught between them and unable to help
George. Sad all around."

That exactly sums up my feelings towards George! Especially that
third-from-last sentence!
Doug

--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-29 13:49:40
Durose David
Hilary,Re Point 2 - the previously used plot
It goes like this...
Clarence spends many years as heir presumptive.Stillington falls out of favour with Edward for various reasons and sees his power diminish.Stillington sees that Clarence is dissatisfied and has been put further down the pecking order by the Woodville marriage.Stillington approaches Clarence with intention of replacing Edward, Stillington would be back in favourClarence points out that he is no longer heir and the young Edward would be crownedStillington says he would claim to have previously married Edward to Eleanor, knowing Edward had helped her and / or she had been his mistress - she is now dead and it would be difficult to disprove if Edward was also gone
Fast forward to 1483. Richard gets himself in a bind by his rash actions after Edward's death, Stillington has a ready made solution.
My argument would be that providing a vector by means of which the 'knowledge of the pre-contract' can be traced is begging the question.
The fact that Clarence was planning to send his son abroad is another instance of separation of heirs. He would become very important if Clarence was going for the throne.
Hope this makes sense.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: K Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

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

2017-06-29 13:53:41
Hilary Jones
Sorry I didn't mean he had that intiative Carol, but he certainly does seem to have fulfilled his role as the older brother at the age of 10. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 19:28
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"We don't know that George was by nature a treacherous character. He was charged with taking Richard to Utrecht at a very early age and did it well."

Carol responds:

It's very unlikely that the two children were unescorted. I think Kendall's guess that they were accompanied by John Skelton, Esq., is probably correct. On October 16, 1461, Edward granted Skelton the office of Surveyor of Scrutiny in the port of London for good service to himself and his brothers (Cal. Pat. Rolls 1461-67, p. 52). What better service could he have rendered them than keeping them safe in a foreign country? (I'm sure that George tried to be brave and comfort his little brother, but he could hardly have provided them both with a ship or food or shelter.)

Carol

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

2017-06-29 14:09:28
Hilary Jones
Yes it does indeed David and it's one I've often considered as a long-time sceptic about the real existence of the Pre Contract. I have never believed Stillington witnessed it, but he could come by the knowledge from 3 sources, Anne Beauchamp, John Newton, Talbot lawyer, relative and father-in-law of his grandchildren and John Ingleby, Edward and EW's Confessor at Sheen. In the case of the latter it would have to be in the later 1470s (i.e. not at the time of the Warwick rebellion).I don't believe he witnessed it because I doubt Edward would have been stupid enough to choose an ex high-ranking Lancastrian, with a sharp legal mind and a penchant for petitioning the Pope. I do think he could have fallen out of favour because he doesn't come across as an easy man. If could have been something as simple as giving Anne sanctuary in St Martin's?Where I do have a problem is Richard going along with something like this, and I do think the scenario of Hastings knowing of the Pre Contract really explains what happened with him - I could never buy him going over to the Woodvilles. If, on the other hand, Stillington didn't tell Richard the truth (i.e. that it was a lie) and Richard because he was a Bishop believed him then I could go with it. This isn't because I think Richard is a saint, but because everything points to his having very high regard for truth and the Law. Go one step further and you ask who put Stillington up to this (truth or not I still do) because he was taking quite a risk. Richard could have been furious with him for concealing it for so long and he could have got the same treatment as Hastings.And yes and I do think there was a link between Stillington and George. The geography of all the main players, including the Twynyhos, points to it. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 13:49
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary,Re Point 2 - the previously used plot
It goes like this...
Clarence spends many years as heir presumptive.Stillington falls out of favour with Edward for various reasons and sees his power diminish.Stillington sees that Clarence is dissatisfied and has been put further down the pecking order by the Woodville marriage.Stillington approaches Clarence with intention of replacing Edward, Stillington would be back in favourClarence points out that he is no longer heir and the young Edward would be crownedStillington says he would claim to have previously married Edward to Eleanor, knowing Edward had helped her and / or she had been his mistress - she is now dead and it would be difficult to disprove if Edward was also gone
Fast forward to 1483. Richard gets himself in a bind by his rash actions after Edward's death, Stillington has a ready made solution.
My argument would be that providing a vector by means of which the 'knowledge of the pre-contract' can be traced is begging the question.
The fact that Clarence was planning to send his son abroad is another instance of separation of heirs. He would become very important if Clarence was going for the throne.
Hope this makes sense.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: K Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress- that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico




(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-06-29 14:17:53
Hilary Jones
Which makes you wonder why Edward let George get his hands on Isabel's (Anne Beauchamp's) lands. It says to me that Edward was even more interested in getting his hands on the lands than curbing George's ambitions. If he'd wanted to curb both his brothers' ambitions he'd have let Anne keep her lands for life - or at least the Warwick/Despenser part. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 18:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote: Are we winning you over Doug? :) :). Not really. While I'm not up on the reasons for Edward opposing the Burgundian match for George, Edward's opposition to George marrying Isabel makes perfect sense. Edward would be replacing one Kingmaker, Warwick, with another potential one, his brother George. I also view both marriage ideas as nothing but attempts by George to gain power that wouldn't be dependent on his brother. And, for whatever reason/s, Edward didn't want George to be in such a position. The result, of course, was that, every action by Edward to limit his brother only caused George to try even harder. Which led to George's treason in 1469. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 14:34:14
Hilary Jones
I often wondered why Ireland and not Burgundy. Was it because he was born in Dublin? In this case, Margaret would have seemed the obvious choice. Interesting how Ireland features occasionally. Somewhere else I need to no more of. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 14:16
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I don't think that we are ever going to know exactly what happened but there is probably more to it than we have been led to believe. Like you Eileen I think there is more to AT than meets the eye. If Isabel had been poisoned would medical expertise in those days know that she had been poisoned? There is the story about George sending E of W to Ireland for safety and what if he was successful in doing that? He must have had a reason or was he just paranoid about the Woodvilles and their hold over Edward and did he know about Eleanor Talbot? So many questions.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 14:53:52
ricard1an
Agree with most of what you are saying but we mustn't forget that the Lancastrians were usurpers too having taken the throne from Richard II and probably murdering him in Pontefract Castle. Also H6, through no fault of his own but by virtue of his inherited mental illness, was not really fit to be king and this resulted in him being used by some manipulative nobles. I say inherited mental illness because I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, Katherine of Valois' father suffered from the same illness.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 15:03:22
ricard1an
Wasn't Clarence Lord Lieutenant, or some such title, of Ireland at one time. The Yorkists seemed to have good links to the Desmond family too.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 15:40:28
b.eileen25
Richard Duke of York had proven very popular in Ireland -

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2017-06-29 17:39:44
Doug Stamate
. Hilary wrote:, I could buy most of this Doug, but the best chance for Anne Beauchamp to have learned of the Pre Contract was when she met Eleanor face to face in 1467. However, she could have met Elizabeth Talbot later face to face, after Eleanor's death. Does anyone know of occasions when she could? Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew. Doug here: That's the problem, though, isn't it? When did Stillington get hold of those proofs? My view, as of now anyway, is that Stillington didn't know about the Pre-Contract until some time after the events of 1469/70, and most likely not until after the George affair which would mean after 1478. Mostly my view is based on the reasoning that such a secret as the King not legally being married to EW and, most importantly, his children being illegitimate, once known by more than the immediate participants, Edward, Eleanor, and the officiating priest, wouldn't stay a secret. It couldn't, if only because Edward's actions struck at the very basis of the social order  trying to pass a bastard off as legitimate. Not only as legitimate, but the legal heir to the throne! Yet not until after Edward's death do we hear anything about the Pre-Contract. AFAIK, there had been no hints, no rumors, no references anywhere, that Edward and Elizabeth weren't legally husband and wife. There were plenty of remarks about how Elizabeth wasn't of sufficient rank to be queen, but nothing about the validity of her marriage to Edward. Hilary continued: I think George is too far in the middle of this mess not to have known. He's bang in the middle of Stillington and Neville country. But I think we've been conned into thinking of George as a drunkard and buffoon. If he had been he wouldn't have been that much of a threat to Edward. What bits we know of him indicate he was witty, a charmer and well liked in the areas he governed. And would Margaret have dedicated the first printed book on Chess to a buffoon? In fact the Chess probably tells us something - that George may well have had a brain equal or better than Edward's. If he did, then he (and Warwick who also had a good brain) would know that the information was of no use until Edward was dead. That's because Edward could put it right by putting aside EW and having a legitimate heir. I think we've said before that Edward junior couldn't be legitimised So if they knew in 1469 they could do nothing. It was powerful knowledge but it was dangerous knowledge which might well have surfaced when George had mental health issues (I think that's how we'd put it today) after the death of Isabel. Which is why there was no question of him surviving. BTW I don't think EW knew - she I'm sure would have got Edward to do something about it on the quiet by twisting the Pope's arm, even if he failed. Just my thoughts. Doug here: I certainly don't think of George as a drunkard and buffoon. I view him, as I rather think Edward may have, as someone not to be trusted. As George's actions in 1469/70 showed. George may very well have been witty, a charmer and well liked, but he'd also shown himself willing to contemplate Edward's death if that's what it took to get him, George, the throne. I also think that thought stuck with Edward for the rest of his life. Which explains, to me anyway, why Edward did his best to keep George in a position where George couldn't cause trouble; which basically meant ensuring that any marriage for George wouldn't be to the heiress of the most powerful man in the kingdom or, later, to the Duchess of Burgundy. Would, under normal circumstances, Isabel have received almost all of the inheritance Beauchamp/Neville inheritance that ended up being divided between George and Richard? If that's correct, then why would Edward want to allow the brother that had betrayed him access to all the power that went with that inheritance? Power that had, with the agreement of George, once been instrumental in removing Edward from the throne? The same reasoning also applies to a marriage between George and Mary of Burgundy. If one views Edward's actions towards George as the result of George's actions in 1469/70, then much, in my view anyway, is explained. Of course, we still don't know why George was seemingly so, well, desperate is the word that best describes it, to be independent, completely independent, of any control exercised by his brother. You're right that, and presuming they knew of it, revealing the Pre-Contract in 1469 would allow Edward to put Elizabeth aside and marry someone else but (You knew there'd be a but!), there's a time factor to be considered. Edward couldn't just say, oh, silly me! My marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was illegal because all along I knew I'd married her when I was already married to Eleanor Butler! Well, he could, but how would such an admission affect Edward's supporters? If my understanding of the period and people's views is correct, that was the one thing Edward couldn't do. He'd be admitting his marriage was illegal, he'd known it was illegal, and yet he'd planned on passing of any children from that marriage as legitimate. Including, as I mentioned above, the heir to the throne. I'd say 1469 was the perfect time to use it such information. Nor would Warwick have to go crawling to Margaret of Anjou, he'd have a ready-made, legitimate heir in his baggage train! An heir, BTW, who wanted to marry his daughter Isabel  certainly a better match for a King, than the relict of a Lancastrian knight! 1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known. I think I've posted before that my view is that what Edward wanted out of the events of 1477 was to strip George of his properties, possibly even keep George sequestered somewhere, but not to execute him. I don't know if Edward, or anyone close to him, was seriously ill or died during this period but, should Edward have had any intimations of his own mortality, he may very well have realized that, should he, Edward, die before his son was of age, George might very well make another try for the throne. And succeed. Add such thoughts to the urgings(?) of Parliament to execute George, mix in possible urgings from his wife and her relatives, who'd also considered what might happen if George were alive before Edward of Westminster was an adult and there you are! I quite agree that Elizabeth Woodville would have done something if she'd know of the Pre-Contract. Especially if she'd found out prior to the events of 1469/70. Eleanor died 30 June, 1468, so there'd be time for Elizabeth to find out, but I tend to think her first move would have been to have another wedding ceremony. While it would still leave her older children illegitimate, presuming anyone else found out about the Pre-Contract, any children born after the second ceremony would be legitimate. I think. Doug Who apologizes, yet again, for the delay in replying and the length of the response.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 18:01:53
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Why does he [Edward] deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person."

Carol responds:

Not openly. The official version was that Henry VI died of "pure displeasure and melancholy"--which I suppose is possible if we believe that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester died in prison under similar circumstances. But Edward's lack of openness (assuming that he did order Henry's death) left the way open for speculation that *Richard* (age eighteen) killed him either on Edward's orders or on his own initiative (which, we all agree, would have been stupid in the extreme and does not fit with Edward's growing affection for and reliance on Richard as evidenced in the records).

As for loyalty, I wonder if Richard's loyalty (like his mother's and his sister Margaret's, and, it appears, his sister Elizabeth's) was to the House of York rather than to Edward specifically. As for George, he seems to have been willing to accept a Lancastrian king at one point, but I won't try to get into his mind any farther than I've already gone.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-29 18:05:46
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Good points on here from both HIlary and Romane regarding George for whom yes, I do have a soft spot, I really just wanted to make the point that because George behaved, prima facie, badly at times, we really don't know all the minutiae but having said thwt I'm not seeking to defend the indefensible. I just really want to point out that SOME of the charges against him are nonsensical and unfounded including that he was a drunk. I asked for someone to indicate to me where this was said of him by his contemporaries. George was only 28ish when he was executed and perhaps he was a hot head ..I'm sure he was. I also want people to wake up and smell the coffee about the implausible story that he forced Anne into the role of a kitchen maid. Doug here: Oh yes, most of what we know about George, the stuff that people remember, appears to me to be either false, or wildly exaggerated! For example; the story about George hiding Anne in a tavern as a kitchen maid, when the most likely course of events was that Anne hid herself. If it was in a tavern, her being there had to be explained, so she became the new kitchen maid. Whether she actually had to scrub pots and pans, I don't know, but it's not likely that task would have been beyond her. And, even though Anne did go into hiding because of George, that's not the same as George doing hiding Anne. It's probably like that game where one person gets told something, that something gets passed on via five or ten other people, and then everyone sits around and laughs at what ended up at the end of the chain! Eileen continued: Yes he did betray Edward and went over to Warwick..well you know maybe Edward asked for it. Richard stuck by Edward, his loyalty is famous.,but that doesn 't mean Edward had deserved Richard's loyalty. Doug here: I think too often George's betrayal of his brother is neglected; especially when looking at how Edward later treated George. IMO, that betrayal alone is sufficient explanation for Edward's later actions regarding George. You are right, though, in our not knowing the why. It may have been that George simply never outgrew that sense of rebellion that so often accompanies adolescence. Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George? Eileen concluded: As for AT well...what went on there? But clearly something did make George act the way he did, Interestingly one of the two others that were supposed to have been arrested along with AT, Roger Tocotes, may have had some sort of link with the Wydevilles and John Morton suggests JAH. . HIcks described Tocotes as the most improbable person for George to have turned on.,so what was it that George found out? Can we put all this down to George merely being mentally unstable at the time? Doug here: The problem with the Ankarette Twynyho affair, as best I can tell, is that we don't really have a day-to-day picture of what George was like. Especially when Isabel isn't in the picture. I rather wonder if she wasn't George's anchor, keeping him from giving in to his, well, impulses? If that were the case, and if George really loved Isabel, and we have absolutely no information he didn't, Isabel's death, followed weeks later by the death of their son Richard, could easily have caused George to go off the rails. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 18:15:29
romanenemo
Hilary wrote:
I was thinking overnight we perhaps need to look at his in a different way ,so bear with me.When someone on here discusses those who rebelled against HT like Lincoln we don't call them traitors, we call them heroes because they're rebelling against the person who killed Richard and who actually wasn't very nice either.
Mary answered :Agree with most of what you are saying but we mustn't forget that the Lancastrians were usurpers too having taken the throne from Richard II and probably murdering him in Pontefract Castle. Also H6, through no fault of his own but by virtue of his inherited mental illness, was not really fit to be king and this resulted in him being used by some manipulative nobles. I say inherited mental illness because I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, Katherine of Valois' father suffered from the same illness.

Romane adds :As Mary says, the Lancastrians were the usurpers, who had dethroned Richard II. And Henry Tudor was all the more an usurper, being of an illegitimate branch, officially barred from inheriting the throne.Either a country tries (theorically) to elect the most able to rule, and it's called a democracy. Or, in a monarchy, it's far better to stick to the succession line very strictly, else it causes an endless series of civil war, as English history often demonstrated.
Hilary:George and Warwick, who were treated pretty shoddily by Edward (as was Montague, I forgot him) are accused of treason. Why? Is it because we're Ricardians and they didn't do the same things as Richard? Now Richard was quite young and idealistic at this point and I think we'd agree that he continued to have an over-optimistic view of the character of some people. I think most of us would also agree that Edward wasn't a very nice person and, nice or not, he'd put the whole kingdom in jeopardy because of a stupid marriage and probably a stupid Pre Contract to boot. Why does he deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person.
Romane:Same here. Edward, as selfish, ungrateful and illl-advised as he could be sometimes, was the legitimate king, being Richard of York's son, who descended from the second son of Edward III and not the third. And there is also the little detail of George being Edward's brother (not that Edward remembered that either in the end). Richard might have been idealistic for his time, but I think he understood the necessity of abiding by rules binding every single one of the citizens, from the lowest to the highest born, instead of having everyone, especially the Lords, follow their own private interests, as George and Warwick obviously did.
Hilary:I think it's all to do with the Great Tudor Fib which has been writing history since 1485. Edward, the father of EOY, must be the golden monarch so that HT can sweep in, clear the dreadful Richard away, and restore England to its glory under Edward. The history books have been written like this ever since, with the one exception of Ross who dared to start taking Edward apart. Sometimes I wish we could throw them all away and start again. And that would help other people, like MOA and Edward of Lancaster, get a just hearing too.
Romane:Here I agree completely. But it seems that a more critical point of view on Edward IV is now rather widespread. As for MOA, being a foreigner and a woman how could she have had a fair hearing ? Yet if her reputation of letting her soldiers ransack the rebel towns and kill their helpless citizens is documented, then she deserves somehow her bad reputation. I wonder if there is any proof that Edward of Lancaster was the vicious young man the novels often describe. Maybe it's just because he was Richard's rival ? He was 17 when he died, the same age as Edmund. Even if he was the true usurper, I can't help but feeling sorry for him.

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Carol wrote::
//snip//
"I don't dislike George. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. (As Kendall
says of both George and Richard, "It is hard to be the brother of a king.")
But whatever his motives and however unfair to him Edward was in some
instances, he did commit treason more than once, and only being the king's
brother (and the pleas of Cecily, Margaret, Stillington, and others) saved
his life the first time around. Then, again, if he hadn't been the king's
brother, he wouldn't have been embroiled in all those schemes in the first
place. Poor George. And poor Edward. I'm sure he didn't want to execute his
own brother. And poor Richard, caught between them and unable to help
George. Sad all around."

That exactly sums up my feelings towards George! Especially that
third-from-last sentence!
Doug

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



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-29 18:16:47
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George?"

Carol responds:

George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-29 18:20:23
Doug Stamate
Carol wrote:
Luckily for Shakespeare, there was just enough material (fact and legend) available on George to make him an interesting, semi-sympathetic character. (Does he even deal with George's treason in the Henry plays? I've forgotten. I do remember that he makes both George and Richard old enough to have fought at Towton and Wakefield and Edmund a child of twelve. And, of course, George becomes more Richard's victim than Edward's.)
By the way, Edward IV (like Edward V and Henry VII) doesn't even rate a play with his own name, whereas poor feeble-minded Henry VI rates three. Perhaps Will couldn't decide how to tie in a play about Edward IV with what he'd written in Richard III? Did any of the Chronicles/Histories mention Edward's first, and only legal, marriage? I understand Shakespeare mined such works for subject matter and perhaps he decided that a really good play about Edward IV all but required mentioning the charges about Edward marrying Eleanor  and that wouldn't be well-received at Court? 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

2017-06-29 18:23:55
Doug Stamate
Paul wrote: I agree with you Doug, George may have been handsome and charming, but he was also definitely unstable, selfish, and always looking for the main chance. Doug here: Thanks for the support! I was getting a bit lonely... 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} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-29 19:01:20
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
Which makes you wonder why Edward let George get his hands on Isabel's (Anne Beauchamp's) lands. It says to me that Edward was even more interested in getting his hands on the lands than curbing George's ambitions. If he'd wanted to curb both his brothers' ambitions he'd have let Anne keep her lands for life - or at least the Warwick/Despenser part.
Doug here:
I don't know if Edward was so anxious to get his own hands on the Beauchamp/Neville/Despenser inheritance, as he was in breaking it up. Edward had seen the power that control of all that land and properties had given Warwick and he didn't want either the Countess, known for her antipathy to Edward, or George to be in a position to exercise that amount of power.
I'm not completely up on ins-and-outs of the finagling over the Countess of Warwick's inheritance, but wasn't it the subject of discussion/s between Edward and George from the very beginning of Edward's return to the throne? There was also Richard's intention to marry Anne to be considered. From what I recollect, from the very beginning Edward was trying to figure out a way of not leaving the entirety of that inheritance in, first the Countess' hands, then George's. Edward accomplished the first via that Act of Parliament treating the Countess' properties as if she were dead. The Attainder on the Earl of Warwick only legally affect his properties, which weren't nearly as important as those held by the Countess in her own right.I have no idea as to why Edward didn't use the same tactic, an Attainder, on the Countess. Wouldn't that have given the disposition of the Beauchamp inheritance to Edward? Then he could have divided it as he saw fit between George and Richard.
I doubt you'll go for it, but perhaps the way Edward treated George regarding the Beauchamp inheritance was Edward trying to be nice? IOW, Edward would have been justified in having the Countess attainted, taking in all her properties, and then disbursing them as Edward saw fit. However, perhaps to ease George's ego, Edward decided to allow George, and Richard, to inherit the Countess' properties; in their own right, actually that of their respective wives, so to speak? Just a thought...
Doug
Who is now wondering why Edward chose having Parliament pass a Bill that treated the Countess' properties as if she were dead, and not an Act of Attainder? Surely, if he the votes for the former, he had the votes for the latter?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 19:28:29
justcarol67
Roamane wrote:

"I wonder if there is any proof that Edward of Lancaster was the vicious young man the novels often describe. Maybe it's just because he was Richard's rival ? He was 17 when he died, the same age as Edmund. Even if he was the true usurper, I can't help but feeling sorry for him."

Carol responds:

I suspect that he considered himself greatly wronged (with reason) and strongly resented the House of York and Edward IV in particular. (He would not, of course, have thought of the House of Lancaster as the descendants of a usurper, or, if he thought of that at all, he would have considered the usurpation justified in the eyes of God and man by the success of Henry V. (I'm not disputing the Yorkist claim, which, in my view, is superior, just trying to present Edward of Lancaster's side.) His mother, of course, would have encouraged this view and, IMO, fanned the flames of resentment.

In any case, history's view of EoL (aside from legend of his murder as opposed to death in battle, which is the clearest example we have of the growth of Richard's black legend over time) comes from this passage written by the Ambassador of the Duchy of Milan to the court of France in 1467:

"This boy, though only thirteen years of age, already talks of nothing but cutting off heads or making war, as if he had everything in his hands or was the god of battle or the peaceful occupant of that throne."

Understandable, but it's a good thing he never came to the throne.

Interesting how people think of him as a boy but Richard, just one year older almost to the day, as a grown man in that battle. Partly Shakespeare's fault, I suppose.

Side note: Does anyone remember a poem celebrating Edward IV as victor of Barnet or Tewkesbury which has a stanza praising "the duke of Gloucester, young in years" or something like that? I can't find it anywhere. I'd greatly appreciate a link or, failing that, the title and author of the poem.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 19:45:31
romanenemo

Hilary :

Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew.

Romane :

That seems to be a very interesting hypothesis. Maybe the king's confessor found such a secret too heavy to bear alone, and told it to Stillington in his own confession. It's true that it could seem strange that Edward would have wanted Stillington as his confidant. But then, it means that Stilligton himself broke a very sacred rule for a catholic priest, the secrecy of confession.

Doug :

My view, as of now anyway, is that Stillington didn't know about the Pre-Contract until some time after the events of 1469/70, and most likely not until after the George affair which would mean after 1478. Mostly my view is based on the reasoning that such a secret as the King not legally being married to EW and, most importantly, his children being illegitimate, once known by more than the immediate participants, Edward, Eleanor, and the officiating priest, wouldn't stay a secret. It couldn't, if only because Edward's actions struck at the very basis of the social order  trying to pass a bastard off as legitimate. Not only as legitimate, but the legal heir to the throne!

Romane :

Why wouldn't it remain a secret ? Stillington might have kept silent for years (after all, it was something heard in confession), and then have chosen to disclose it to George - or not, if it's not the reason why George was sentenced to death.

Anyway,it was clear that the ones who would have dared to utter a word about it would have been efficiently silenced very soon. As it happened : George by death, Stillingon by a stay in the Tower.

Doug :

1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known.

Romane :

You're right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later.

Hilary :

I don't believe he witnessed it because I doubt Edward would have been stupid enough to choose an ex high-ranking Lancastrian, with a sharp legal mind and a penchant for petitioning the Pope. I do think he could have fallen out of favour because he doesn't come across as an easy man. If could have been something as simple as giving Anne sanctuary in St Martin's?

Romane :

I agree that Stilligton probably didn't witness it, the reasons you give for that are very good. But the alleged reason for his being sent to the Tower (strangely around the moment when George was executed) was that he had said thing detrimental to the king. So the reason is known and it fits very well with the idea that he could have disclosed the secret to George. A secret that was valuable only after Edward's death.

Hilary :

Where I do have a problem is Richard going along with something like this, and I do think the scenario of Hastings knowing of the Pre Contract really explains what happened with him - I could never buy him going over to the Woodvilles. If, on the other hand, Stillington didn't tell Richard the truth (i.e. that it was a lie) and Richard because he was a Bishop believed him then I could go with it.

Romane :

But what would have been Stilligton's interest in telling such a lie to Richard ? As you say, the bishop was taking a huge risk. Besides, he was a member of Edward V's council and wasn't particularly close to Richard. Of course, there is the possibility that the two were accomplice. But Stilligton didn't receive any spectacular reward after his revelation.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 20:05:32
romanenemo
Carol:Interesting how people think of him as a boy but Richard, just one year older almost to the day, as a grown man in that battle. Partly Shakespeare's fault, I suppose.

Romane:Yes, if proof was needed that Shakespeare didn't give a damn about a minimal amount of historical accuracy, there is that way he makes Richard be part of many events that in fact happened when he was only a child.
But maybe, the main reason why people, when discussing the year 1471, think of Edward of Lancaster as a boy, and of Richard as a man is not Shakespeare, but the fact that Richard actually did the job of a man. He was leading the vanguard at Tewkesbury, and maybe at Barnet, too ! Whereas he was so young and hadn't any experience as a commander. This say volumes about Edward's trust in his little brother's loyalty, abilities and courage. And then, he made him High Constable of England, another incredible proof of trust, but also, certainly, a terrible burden for one so young. And then, he received the mission to keep the North for Edward, a task far from easy, in which he succeeded admirably.Indeed, from that first commission of array at eleven, Richard kept shouldering extremely huge responsibilities for his age. No wonder he was so serious, to the point he could older than he was (I wonder if that nickname 'Old Dick' that Stanley is supposed to have given to him comes from a reliable source ?).And no wonder if George became jealous. It mustn't have been very pleasant for him to see his brother, three years younger, take the vanguard whereas he was only Edward's shadow on the battlefield.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-29 23:22:08
ricard1an
Maybe if the Woodvilles hadn't been plotting to crown Edward V before Richard arrived in London and Edward Woodville and the Marquis of Dorset hadn't acted as they did Stillington might not have said anything. Richard would have been Protector and the country would have been safe. However, the Woodvilles did try to rule through young Edward and Stillington would probably have been aware a) how unpopular the Woodvilles were and how greedy and rapacious they were. b) He would also know the dangers of having a boy king with an over mighty family and thought that it would be better for the country if Richard, who had a reputation as a good and capable ruler, was King and so he told what he knew about Edward's marriage to ET.
Mary


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-06-30 00:33:46
Doug Stamate
Hilary, A very interesting post I have to admit, but I think it misses the point I was trying to make about George. George accepted Edward as king, almost certainly swore an oath of allegiance to Edward as his king and was apparently willing to be Edward's heir apparent for a decade. During that decade, the only thing Edward wouldn't allow George to do was marry Warwick's daughter. And that came at the end of that time period. If there's any other information about how Edward mistreated George during that time, I haven't seen it. I really can't see Edward's refusal to let George marry Isabel sufficient excuse for George's actions. Again, it could be there was more and we don't know it, but one would think there'd be at least a hint of disagreements between George and Edward before 1469, but I don't know of any. Frankly, considering the situation between Edward and Warwick, at that point in time, I can't imagine why George would think Edward might approve. Now, if George remained on side, so to speak, and helped Edward curb Warwick, I could imagine Edward rewarding George by a marriage to Isabel, but certainly not Edward approving a marriage that would align George's interests with Warwick's and against Edward's when Edward was trying to curb Warwick's power. Because I'm almost certain that's how Edward viewed such a marriage; I know it's how I do. I agree that Edward was, to say the least, self-indulgent, but is that enough a reason to toss him off the throne! Even the discovery that he wasn't legally married to Elizabeth Woodville wouldn't necessarily be enough; unless Edward completely refused and we've heard absolutely nothing about such a confrontation (doesn't mean it didn't happen, of course). I also agree that Edward has been the subject of a post-mortem, especially post-Richard, propaganda campaign. Partly because he was EoY's father but, as you say, as a comparison with the Tudor version of Richard. Are there any books out there, other than Ross' about Edward? Or even articles? Anything? If nothing else, perhaps we might find what caused the rift, which there obviously was, between Edward and George. Doug Hilary wrote: I was thinking overnight we perhaps need to look at his in a different way ,so bear with me. When someone on here discusses those who rebelled against HT like Lincoln we don't call them traitors, we call them heroes because they're rebelling against the person who killed Richard and who actually wasn't very nice either. George and Warwick, who were treated pretty shoddily by Edward (as was Montague, I forgot him) are accused of treason. Why? Is it because we're Ricardians and they didn't do the same things as Richard ? Now Richard was quite young and idealistic at this point and I think we'd agree that he continued to have an over-optimistic view of the character of some people. I think most of us would also agree that Edward wasn't a very nice person and, nice or not, he'd put the whole kingdom in jeopardy because of a stupid marriage and probably a stupid Pre Contract to boot. Why does he deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person. I think it's all to do with the Great Tudor Fib which has been writing history since 1485. Edward, the father of EOY, must be the golden monarch so that HT can sweep in, clear the dreadful Richard away, and restore England to its glory under Edward. He can't of course mention that Edward was a usurper and that ROY was an ambitious agitator who wanted to sweep Henry VI out of the way for the good of the country. Yes Henry was periodically ill but he had a wife, a Council and a son who would soon come of age. I wonder how often the old Lancastrians in HT's court had to bite their lip when the Lancastrian age, like Richard's was re-presented as a dark, inefficient period. It wasn't Henry VI's fault that we lost France, the venture was doomed before Henry V set foot there. And George and Warwick are caught up in all this. They dared to rebel against England's saviour king, who just happened to be HT's father-in-law. The history books have been written like this ever since, with the one exception of Ross who dared to start taking Edward apart. Sometimes I wish we could throw them all away and start again. And that would help other people, like MOA and Edward of Lancaster, get a just hearing too.
--
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] Re: Stilli

2017-06-30 04:18:15
Nance Crawford
ÿ And a drunk. Everything I am aware of that he is reported doing after losing Isobel screams the need for a good 12 Step program (been there, seen that). Textbook. Most people need to have seen it, lived with it, to know what's going on - and they were at something of a disadvantage in the 15th century. Sorry if I've offended anyone.
www.NanceCrawford.com
KING'S GAMES: The Commentaries
http://amzn.to/1VvKiHV
----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:23 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I agree with you Doug, George may have been handsome and charming, but he was also definitely unstable, selfish, and always looking for the main chance.
Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 28 juin 2017 à 19:30, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote: You really don't like our George do you Doug? :) :) Seems Mr Shakespeare has won. Yet he seems blameless in his devotion to Isabel - not one bastard ever noted (not that that was about love) and, as I've said many times, here in Warwickshire he is remembered with affection, as is Hastings in Leicestershire. I don't remember anyone ever remembering the Woodvilles with affection. And some folk even managed to be fond of MB ..... Doug here: It's not so much not liking George, as recognizing he was quite willing to sell out his brother for a shot at the throne; IOW, George does fit that false, fleeting, perjured bit. Which isn't exactly an admirable trait. My view of George is that he was extremely self-centered, which doesn't prevent him from being charming or even well-remembered. It does mean, however, that when such a person occupies a position of prominence in a royal dynasty, as George did, the results can be a disaster. Notice that while Isabel was alive, and after the wrangling over the Neville/Beauchamp inheritance, we really don't hear much about George. It's only when George is on his own, that things  happen. The thought also occurs to me; how much of that being remembered with affection in Warwickshire was due to Isabel? George turned on Edward in 1469, hoping to be made the heir to the throne, when anyone with half a brain would realize that any deal between Warwick and Margaret of Anjou would entail Warwick supporting the return of Henry VI to the throne, and Edward of Lancaster to his position as Henry's heir. IOW, Warwick was using George for Warwick's ends, not George's. Also note that George only switched back to his brother's side after he was no longer in consideration as a replacement for Edward. Then there's the question of what would happen to George's brother, aka King Edward IV, if Warwick's support of Henry VI was successful in returning Henry to the throne? Ex-kings, especially non-dotty ones, didn't have a long life expectancy. IOW, whether George realized it or not, and he certainly should have, replacing Edward as king, whether with Henry VI or himself, would be signing Edward's death warrant, either on the battlefield or the block. Even though he welcomed George back, I seriously doubt that thought had never crossed Edward's mind. George may be viewed as being put upon and/or side-lined by Edward; made fun of, and even slandered about his drinking by later writers, but none of that masks the fact that George was a traitor and from all the available known facts, either willing to see his brother dead so he, George, could be king, or else was too stupid; perhaps self-absorbed would be a better term, to realize that the only way he could get the throne was through his brother's death. George may have been the epitome of personal charm, but he does, at least in my opinion, need to be held responsible for his actions. Doug Who really doesn't think that, even should Shakespeare have essentially matched his written portrayal of an historical figure to that person's actual character to be a win for him. It's more of getting one portrayal right  amongst so many incorrect portrayals. A matter of odds, really.
--
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] Stillingto

2017-06-30 05:32:58
Nance Crawford
ÿ

This is a long one. Sorry, have been reading along but have had no time to comment, and will have to read the following comments tomorrow evening, as I have to get back to work.

Hilary, you make excellent points re our contemporary perusals and judgments about the participants.

Doug, I'll go to the wall for Stillington's silence being honest. Whether or not he was a professional churchman, he had served Edward from the beginning of the reign. He did not have to be Edward's official confessor to have learned Edward's secrets. He may even have been the person Edward sent to Eleanor Butler to tell her it was over  I don't doubt that only a pragmatic priest would have the skill and patience to counsel her, and help her find the presence of mind to keep quiet about the entire matter, lest she be held up to ridicule and ruin whatever hopes her prospective brother-in-law might have in the new reign. Edward would have presumed Stillington's silence  he later set him up with an ungodly amount of income from Bath and Wells - until, suddenly, he throws the man into prison for several months for, apparently, no good reason (unless Hilary or someone else has found one), right about the time George behaves incredibly foolishly and with such arrogance, that he is slapped into confinement, tried and found guilty of lese majesty, and then, however it happened, became judicially dead.

People seem to discount the fact that, from birth to death, the Church still had everyone by the soul, codpiece and cassock. Whatever Stillington knew, he did not hear it in the confessional, or we would not even have the information that has survived. He was there, daily  at the time of the Butler incident he was Keeper of the Seal, always handy to the new king. It is not at all surprising that he kept silent. His livelihood depended upon his discretion.

To all intents and purposes, Eleanor had retired from the world. I don't understand why nobody has pointed out that, although she was still young enough (and obviously attractive) she never publicly remarried. The obvious reason is that she (and Stillington  and, perhaps, her sister, who could say nothing) knew she was already married. In that age, a widowed young woman of good family, even one with no living children, was marriage material for any widower with no need of another dowry but having half-orphaned children of his own to raise and a household manager who was obligated to sleep with him.

She had two choices: marriage or the cloister. She could not marry. There wouldn't be a Carmelite nunnery in England for another thirteen years; nevertheless, she finally took vows as a Carmelite tertiary, to live in the world but not as a part of it, and was dead twenty-seven months later, age thirty-two.

Within two months, Edward bound himself to Elizabeth Woodville Grey.

No doubt that, at Reading, Stillington was even more shocked than Warwick, when Edward said, I've made my choice. Live with it.

And there they all were.

Although to some of you it would be a simple primer, I wish you'd take a look at KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries. It was separated from the play edition and intended as basic guide for people (and actors) not familiar with the milieu, a gift for the ignorant. It is a lot of work being presently ignored and needs stand-alone Amazon reviews. I'd appreciate your informed comments.

Hope I haven't worn out my welcome.

www.NanceCrawford.com
KING'S GAMES: The Commentaries
http://amzn.to/1VvKiHV
----- Original Message ----- From: Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 5:49 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary, Re Point 2 - the previously used plot
It goes like this...
Clarence spends many years as heir presumptive. Stillington falls out of favour with Edward for various reasons and sees his power diminish. Stillington sees that Clarence is dissatisfied and has been put further down the pecking order by the Woodville marriage. Stillington approaches Clarence with intention of replacing Edward, Stillington would be back in favour Clarence points out that he is no longer heir and the young Edward would be crowned Stillington says he would claim to have previously married Edward to Eleanor, knowing Edward had helped her and / or she had been his mistress - she is now dead and it would be difficult to disprove if Edward was also gone
Fast forward to 1483. Richard gets himself in a bind by his rash actions after Edward's death, Stillington has a ready made solution.
My argument would be that providing a vector by means of which the 'knowledge of the pre-contract' can be traced is begging the question.
The fact that Clarence was planning to send his son abroad is another instance of separation of heirs. He would become very important if Clarence was going for the throne.
Hope this makes sense.
Regards David


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: K Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had ended up with Hampton. Cecily could easily have been left out, and Anne Neville because she only about 12 at the time. However, Anne Beauchamp lived with Anne and Richard later on, and the temptation to reveal unfavourable gossip about Edward - who had treated her badly - would be hard to resist. That is why I think Richard could have heard of it, then dismissed it as a malicious rumour from Warwick and Clarence. Alternatively, she told Anne, who didn't tell Richard, because she thought it might make him angry, given his loyalty to Edward. I'm not sure either way, but I do think Edward could have lied to him, and when he found out he would have been devastated.

Overall, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence that indicates that Stillington was telling the truth when he came forward in 1483, and the likelihood of George, Isabel and Anne Beauchamp knowing raise more questions about the Ankarette Twyhno affair, and the possible murder of Eleanor Talbot.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 11:23, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:


Mary wrote: Nico, do you think that Warwick knew from 1461 onwards or soon afterwards? The reason that I ask is that in 1464 he was busy trying to arrange Edward's marriage to Bona of Savoy, I just wonder that if he did know was he planning not to tell the French or anyone else for that matter?
That is a interesting question, as Warwick and Edward were close at the time, but my instinct is that he probably didn't, because I don't think he would have proceeded with the Bona of Savoy negotiations if he did. I don't believe he would have encouraged a marriage that he knew was bigamous, for both moral reasons and because he would have been aware of the unpleasant consequences if the marriage to Eleanor was revealed after Edward had married Bona. However, he may well have known that Edward had a relationship with Eleanor, or perhaps it was some sort of betrothal, but not a valid marriage.
Romanemo wrote: Or maybe, Edward married Elizabeth because he knew he couldn't marry a princess, in case his previous marriage to Eleanor would be revealed, thus causing a terrible diplomatic crisis ?
I didn't really occur to me that Edward would think ahead that much, as he strikes me as an arrogant young man who thought thought that because he was the King, his impulsive and stupid decisions would never come back to haunt him. However, it is a possibility that he eventually did wake up to the fact that he was in deep water, with one wife paid off while secretly married to another, and decided that revealing the marriage to Elizabeth was the answer. He may have had no choice because if he didn't, the Woodvilles knew and would shout it from the rooftops. Initially he could have been hoping to keep the marriage to her a secret too, otherwise why not do it publicly? This show his naivety though, since the pushy ambition of the Lancatrian Woodvilles had been well known at least since Agincourt. If there was anyone who a King with a dirty secret should avoid it was a woman who had parents and brothers with strong personalities to defend her honour.

The relationship between Elizabeth Woodville and Edward is an interesting question. There is that story from Thomas More about them meeting under an apple tree, which is probably a myth, and personally, I suspect that she had been his mistress for some time. May 1st 1464 is the generally accepted date of the marriage, but there is no proof that is wasn't earlier. There was that portrait from Queen's College Cambridge, which dated 1463, which appears to be a copy of an earlier painting, as the spelling on the name and date seems to be from a later date. However, this caption probably repeats the essence of what was originally written (most likely in Latin.) It was rare at the time for someone of Elizabeth Woodville's status to have a portrait of that calibre painted, although it clearly looks like her. However, if she was the King's mistress (or perhaps already secretly his wife), then a formal portrait wouldn't have been so unusual. The longer he was with her, the longer the Woodvilles had to dig their heels in. There is also the possibility that Edward liked the dynamic of their close knit family, when his own was rather diffuse, with Jacquetta being a Carole Middleton type figure while Cecily was a more regal and distant mother.
Nico


On Monday, 26 June 2017, 9:46, "maryfriend@... []" <> wrote:


I have also thought that maybe Edward married Elizabeth because he knew that marrying Bona of Savoy would be difficult. Originally I wondered what if he had married Bona and then the story of the pre-contract had surfaced but it has crossed my mind that he might have done it deliberately.
Mary








On Tue, 27 Jun 2017 at 9:51, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi David, point 1 is a good point unless of course he was so frightened of EW (and her mother) that he dare not go back on a promise. Re point 2, who would ask Stillington to do this - someone who wanted to get rid of Edward's heirs? Do you have anyone in particular in mind? It is a good point. What has always puzzled me is the silence of the Talbots. Now they were Lancastrian in leaning so why didn't they step forward and say their sister had been wronged? One can understand them keeping quiet under HT but they had nothing to fear under Richard - it would just have endorsed the case? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 22:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary and Karen,
Firstly, there is no contemporary source that mentions proof as far as I know. Commynes, who will have met Henry's rebels, some of whom may have been present, specifically says that no proof was offered and that Stillington said only he was present.
It seems the recent posts about the pre contract have a couple of issues
1 If Edward IV married EW to avoid marrying, he need not have done it, because if the alleged marriage had already happened, surely all he needed to do was to let it be known that there was an impediment.
2 Most of the circumstantial evidence, bringing together the various parties also supports alternative hypotheses - that Eleanor may have been a mistress - that no relationship existed between Eleanor and Edward, but in the 1470s, Stillington offered to put forward the story 'if the king died' knowing the couple's paths had crossed and Eleanor was now dead. This would explain how the story came so quickly to his mind in 1483 - it was one he had used earlier.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 at 14:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []d <> wrote: Yes, if you read my posts from years' ago you'll know that, despite JAH, I was sceptical about the reality of the Pre-Contract and certainly Stillington's involvement. But it's all getting too close, too cosy amongst these people. Just throw MB into the gentlewomens' circle who took the modern equivalent of afternoon tea and it gets very interesting. It would be like one of those Thora Hird sessions in the Last of the Summer Wine :) H

From: "Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 26 June 2017, 12:08
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Hilary,
I think you are right about he Hastings scenario. He was closest to Edward, and would have been sworn to secrecy. The events of June 13 1483 are still unclear, but it is possible that he confessed the truth when confronted by a furious Richard, and the execution happened soon after.
As for the others knowing, if Clarence knew, the first people he would have told would have been Anne Beauchamp, Warwick and Isabel. Anne Beauchamp must have known how land from her family had e

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 08:38:50
Hilary Jones
Yes it was Charles VI of France, MaryI was being provocative:) You see, if you go right back to before Richard II what you get are groups of avaricious, squabbling nobles; it's always worst when there's a minority or infirmity (Edward III at the end of his life and Henry VI). It's extremely hard to justify that one person is more virtuous than the other and history is always written by the winner who inevitably presents themselves as saviour after a dark era.I do put some blame on ROY who shaped his family as kings by right in a bit the same way as Joseph Kennedy - in fact the parallels and the fates are eerie. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 14:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Agree with most of what you are saying but we mustn't forget that the Lancastrians were usurpers too having taken the throne from Richard II and probably murdering him in Pontefract Castle. Also H6, through no fault of his own but by virtue of his inherited mental illness, was not really fit to be king and this resulted in him being used by some manipulative nobles. I say inherited mental illness because I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, Katherine of Valois' father suffered from the same illness.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard

2017-06-30 08:52:30
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, re your first post I think two of the three - Eleanor and priest - were dead. Marie came up with a candidate priest from nearby Paulerspury or Potterspury (can't remember which) who died soon afterwards. But I do agree; it is strange that there were no rumours. I do agree with most of the rest of what you say. That's a very good point about Warwick and MOA and I think goes a long way to quashing the theory that Warwick and Clarence knew. I still think there's room for Clarence to have acquired the knowledge between then and his death though. We don't know how Anne Beauchamp would have lashed out in private when deprived of her lands by Edward. Of course an 'alliance' between Clarence and Stillington may not have been about the Pre Contract. Both are deep in rebel territory.FWIW my money would be on Father Ingleby (later Bishop of LLandaff). The Inglebys were a religious family, for them to harbour such a secret on the death of Edward would be an enormous burden and they were also in Richard's circle, so if it came by them, he would trust them. I also agree that EW couldn't have known - she would have beaten Edward up far too much! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 17:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

. Hilary wrote:, I could buy most of this Doug, but the best chance for Anne Beauchamp to have learned of the Pre Contract was when she met Eleanor face to face in 1467. However, she could have met Elizabeth Talbot later face to face, after Eleanor's death. Does anyone know of occasions when she could? Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew. Doug here: That's the problem, though, isn't it? When did Stillington get hold of those proofs? My view, as of now anyway, is that Stillington didn't know about the Pre-Contract until some time after the events of 1469/70, and most likely not until after the George affair which would mean after 1478. Mostly my view is based on the reasoning that such a secret as the King not legally being married to EW and, most importantly, his children being illegitimate, once known by more than the immediate participants, Edward, Eleanor, and the officiating priest, wouldn't stay a secret. It couldn't, if only because Edward's actions struck at the very basis of the social order  trying to pass a bastard off as legitimate. Not only as legitimate, but the legal heir to the throne! Yet not until after Edward's death do we hear anything about the Pre-Contract. AFAIK, there had been no hints, no rumors, no references anywhere, that Edward and Elizabeth weren't legally husband and wife. There were plenty of remarks about how Elizabeth wasn't of sufficient rank to be queen, but nothing about the validity of her marriage to Edward. Hilary continued: I think George is too far in the middle of this mess not to have known. He's bang in the middle of Stillington and Neville country. But I think we've been conned into thinking of George as a drunkard and buffoon. If he had been he wouldn't have been that much of a threat to Edward. What bits we know of him indicate he was witty, a charmer and well liked in the areas he governed. And would Margaret have dedicated the first printed book on Chess to a buffoon? In fact the Chess probably tells us something - that George may well have had a brain equal or better than Edward's. If he did, then he (and Warwick who also had a good brain) would know that the information was of no use until Edward was dead. That's because Edward could put it right by putting aside EW and having a legitimate heir. I think we've said before that Edward junior couldn't be legitimised So if they knew in 1469 they could do nothing. It was powerful knowledge but it was dangerous knowledge which might well have surfaced when George had mental health issues (I think that's how we'd put it today) after the death of Isabel. Which is why there was no question of him surviving. BTW I don't think EW knew - she I'm sure would have got Edward to do something about it on the quiet by twisting the Pope's arm, even if he failed. Just my thoughts. Doug here: I certainly don't think of George as a drunkard and buffoon. I view him, as I rather think Edward may have, as someone not to be trusted. As George's actions in 1469/70 showed. George may very well have been witty, a charmer and well liked, but he'd also shown himself willing to contemplate Edward's death if that's what it took to get him, George, the throne. I also think that thought stuck with Edward for the rest of his life. Which explains, to me anyway, why Edward did his best to keep George in a position where George couldn't cause trouble; which basically meant ensuring that any marriage for George wouldn't be to the heiress of the most powerful man in the kingdom or, later, to the Duchess of Burgundy. Would, under normal circumstances, Isabel have received almost all of the inheritance Beauchamp/Neville inheritance that ended up being divided between George and Richard? If that's correct, then why would Edward want to allow the brother that had betrayed him access to all the power that went with that inheritance? Power that had, with the agreement of George, once been instrumental in removing Edward from the throne? The same reasoning also applies to a marriage between George and Mary of Burgundy. If one views Edward's actions towards George as the result of George's actions in 1469/70, then much, in my view anyway, is explained. Of course, we still don't know why George was seemingly so, well, desperate is the word that best describes it, to be independent, completely independent, of any control exercised by his brother. You're right that, and presuming they knew of it, revealing the Pre-Contract in 1469 would allow Edward to put Elizabeth aside and marry someone else but (You knew there'd be a but!), there's a time factor to be considered. Edward couldn't just say, oh, silly me! My marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was illegal because all along I knew I'd married her when I was already married to Eleanor Butler! Well, he could, but how would such an admission affect Edward's supporters? If my understanding of the period and people's views is correct, that was the one thing Edward couldn't do. He'd be admitting his marriage was illegal, he'd known it was illegal, and yet he'd planned on passing of any children from that marriage as legitimate. Including, as I mentioned above, the heir to the throne. I'd say 1469 was the perfect time to use it such information. Nor would Warwick have to go crawling to Margaret of Anjou, he'd have a ready-made, legitimate heir in his baggage train! An heir, BTW, who wanted to marry his daughter Isabel  certainly a better match for a King, than the relict of a Lancastrian knight! 1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known. I think I've posted before that my view is that what Edward wanted out of the events of 1477 was to strip George of his properties, possibly even keep George sequestered somewhere, but not to execute him. I don't know if Edward, or anyone close to him, was seriously ill or died during this period but, should Edward have had any intimations of his own mortality, he may very well have realized that, should he, Edward, die before his son was of age, George might very well make another try for the throne. And succeed. Add such thoughts to the urgings(?) of Parliament to execute George, mix in possible urgings from his wife and her relatives, who'd also considered what might happen if George were alive before Edward of Westminster was an adult and there you are! I quite agree that Elizabeth Woodville would have done something if she'd know of the Pre-Contract. Especially if she'd found out prior to the events of 1469/70. Eleanor died 30 June, 1468, so there'd be time for Elizabeth to find out, but I tend to think her first move would have been to have another wedding ceremony. While it would still leave her older children illegitimate, presuming anyone else found out about the Pre-Contract, any children born after the second ceremony would be legitimate. I think. Doug Who apologizes, yet again, for the delay in replying and the length of the response.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 09:03:09
Hilary Jones
Agree with your first points Carol.The situation of George during the Warwick rebellion became very strange. My recollection is that they were all retreating to Calais where Warwick was Captain, Wenlock wouldn't let them land, Isabel's baby was delivered and died and eventually Louis let them land at Honfleur. Was that the moment when Warwick thought he was in the last chance saloon and had to do a deal with Louis (and MOA)? George is then left in Honfleur with Isabel whilst Warwick and the two Annes go off to meet Louis and MOA. So already George is 'redundant' and when I recall Edward was sending messages to him via a mysterious woman asking him to come home.After lots of delays and the MOA deal George returns home with Warwick. We hear quite a bit about Warwick dusting down Henry and having his French mercantile deals rejected by the City of London, but not about George. What was he doing, recruiting? But half-heartedly methinks. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:03
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Why does he [Edward] deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person."

Carol responds:

Not openly. The official version was that Henry VI died of "pure displeasure and melancholy"--which I suppose is possible if we believe that Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester died in prison under similar circumstances. But Edward's lack of openness (assuming that he did order Henry's death) left the way open for speculation that *Richard* (age eighteen) killed him either on Edward's orders or on his own initiative (which, we all agree, would have been stupid in the extreme and does not fit with Edward's growing affection for and reliance on Richard as evidenced in the records).

As for loyalty, I wonder if Richard's loyalty (like his mother's and his sister Margaret's, and, it appears, his sister Elizabeth's) was to the House of York rather than to Edward specifically. As for George, he seems to have been willing to accept a Lancastrian king at one point, but I won't try to get into his mind any farther than I've already gone.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-30 09:10:51
Hilary Jones
Couple of quick thingsI don't think you can ignore the role of Cis in some of this. She didn't actually discourage George in 1469, did she, particularly over the Isabel marriage? Behind it may be the loss of her earlier power over Edward to EW. As George became more unhinged after Isabel's death he might have believed he still had her silent consent?Secondly, Roger Tocotes, the Bosworth 'traitor' - didn't know he was involved in the Twynyho affair!! Must read it up again. Back to my notes! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:05
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Eileen wrote: Good points on here from both HIlary and Romane regarding George for whom yes, I do have a soft spot, I really just wanted to make the point that because George behaved, prima facie, badly at times, we really don't know all the minutiae but having said thwt I'm not seeking to defend the indefensible. I just really want to point out that SOME of the charges against him are nonsensical and unfounded including that he was a drunk. I asked for someone to indicate to me where this was said of him by his contemporaries. George was only 28ish when he was executed and perhaps he was a hot head ..I'm sure he was. I also want people to wake up and smell the coffee about the implausible story that he forced Anne into the role of a kitchen maid. Doug here: Oh yes, most of what we know about George, the stuff that people remember, appears to me to be either false, or wildly exaggerated! For example; the story about George hiding Anne in a tavern as a kitchen maid, when the most likely course of events was that Anne hid herself. If it was in a tavern, her being there had to be explained, so she became the new kitchen maid. Whether she actually had to scrub pots and pans, I don't know, but it's not likely that task would have been beyond her. And, even though Anne did go into hiding because of George, that's not the same as George doing hiding Anne. It's probably like that game where one person gets told something, that something gets passed on via five or ten other people, and then everyone sits around and laughs at what ended up at the end of the chain! Eileen continued: Yes he did betray Edward and went over to Warwick..well you know maybe Edward asked for it. Richard stuck by Edward, his loyalty is famous.,but that doesn 't mean Edward had deserved Richard's loyalty. Doug here: I think too often George's betrayal of his brother is neglected; especially when looking at how Edward later treated George. IMO, that betrayal alone is sufficient explanation for Edward's later actions regarding George. You are right, though, in our not knowing the why. It may have been that George simply never outgrew that sense of rebellion that so often accompanies adolescence. Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George? Eileen concluded: As for AT well...what went on there? But clearly something did make George act the way he did, Interestingly one of the two others that were supposed to have been arrested along with AT, Roger Tocotes, may have had some sort of link with the Wydevilles and John Morton suggests JAH. . HIcks described Tocotes as the most improbable person for George to have turned on.,so what was it that George found out? Can we put all this down to George merely being mentally unstable at the time? Doug here: The problem with the Ankarette Twynyho affair, as best I can tell, is that we don't really have a day-to-day picture of what George was like. Especially when Isabel isn't in the picture. I rather wonder if she wasn't George's anchor, keeping him from giving in to his, well, impulses? If that were the case, and if George really loved Isabel, and we have absolutely no information he didn't, Isabel's death, followed weeks later by the death of their son Richard, could easily have caused George to go off the rails. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 09:25:48
Hilary Jones
Hi Romanenemo, the problem is, if you go by this, every king since Edward the Confessor is not the legitimate king! Under our unwritten 'constitution' kings gained the throne either by inheritance or conquest. So William I, Henry IV (Bolingbroke), Edward IV, Henry VII and arguably William III are all kings by right of conquest, regardless of whether they should have been or not. In other words, the strongest or the luckiest (in the case of HT) wins. As I said in my post to Mary, a weak king brought out the bully boys. One thing I reckon Shakespeare got absolutely right was busying idle minds with foreign quarrels (Henry V); not a good long term strategy but a clever short-term one.Which reminds me, George did seem very loyal in 1475 and it was Richard who was the naughty boy then. Does seem to point even more to Isabel's death being some sort of mental trigger. The other thing which has come to me is that after George's death Richard was seen rarely at court (forget which source, Croyland?). Now Richard valued loyalty above everything so he couldn't have thought George had done something that bad? And was he too now very disillusioned with Edward? I agree very much with your comments about MOA etc. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:15
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:
I was thinking overnight we perhaps need to look at his in a different way ,so bear with me.When someone on here discusses those who rebelled against HT like Lincoln we don't call them traitors, we call them heroes because they're rebelling against the person who killed Richard and who actually wasn't very nice either.
Mary answered :Agree with most of what you are saying but we mustn't forget that the Lancastrians were usurpers too having taken the throne from Richard II and probably murdering him in Pontefract Castle. Also H6, through no fault of his own but by virtue of his inherited mental illness, was not really fit to be king and this resulted in him being used by some manipulative nobles. I say inherited mental illness because I believe, but I am not absolutely sure, Katherine of Valois' father suffered from the same illness.

Romane adds :As Mary says, the Lancastrians were the usurpers, who had dethroned Richard II. And Henry Tudor was all the more an usurper, being of an illegitimate branch, officially barred from inheriting the throne.Either a country tries (theorically) to elect the most able to rule, and it's called a democracy. Or, in a monarchy, it's far better to stick to the succession line very strictly, else it causes an endless series of civil war, as English history often demonstrated.
Hilary:George and Warwick, who were treated pretty shoddily by Edward (as was Montague, I forgot him) are accused of treason. Why? Is it because we're Ricardians and they didn't do the same things as Richard? Now Richard was quite young and idealistic at this point and I think we'd agree that he continued to have an over-optimistic view of the character of some people. I think most of us would also agree that Edward wasn't a very nice person and, nice or not, he'd put the whole kingdom in jeopardy because of a stupid marriage and probably a stupid Pre Contract to boot. Why does he deserve loyalty if HT doesn't? After all, he was a usurper himself and he openly murdered his predecessor, who was actually a much nicer person.
Romane:Same here. Edward, as selfish, ungrateful and illl-advised as he could be sometimes, was the legitimate king, being Richard of York's son, who descended from the second son of Edward III and not the third. And there is also the little detail of George being Edward's brother (not that Edward remembered that either in the end). Richard might have been idealistic for his time, but I think he understood the necessity of abiding by rules binding every single one of the citizens, from the lowest to the highest born, instead of having everyone, especially the Lords, follow their own private interests, as George and Warwick obviously did.
Hilary:I think it's all to do with the Great Tudor Fib which has been writing history since 1485. Edward, the father of EOY, must be the golden monarch so that HT can sweep in, clear the dreadful Richard away, and restore England to its glory under Edward. The history books have been written like this ever since, with the one exception of Ross who dared to start taking Edward apart. Sometimes I wish we could throw them all away and start again. And that would help other people, like MOA and Edward of Lancaster, get a just hearing too.
Romane:Here I agree completely. But it seems that a more critical point of view on Edward IV is now rather widespread. As for MOA, being a foreigner and a woman how could she have had a fair hearing ? Yet if her reputation of letting her soldiers ransack the rebel towns and kill their helpless citizens is documented, then she deserves somehow her bad reputation. I wonder if there is any proof that Edward of Lancaster was the vicious young man the novels often describe. Maybe it's just because he was Richard's rival ? He was 17 when he died, the same age as Edmund. Even if he was the true usurper, I can't help but feeling sorry for him.

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 28 June 2017, 20:03
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Carol wrote::
//snip//
"I don't dislike George. In some ways, I feel sorry for him. (As Kendall
says of both George and Richard, "It is hard to be the brother of a king.")
But whatever his motives and however unfair to him Edward was in some
instances, he did commit treason more than once, and only being the king's
brother (and the pleas of Cecily, Margaret, Stillington, and others) saved
his life the first time around. Then, again, if he hadn't been the king's
brother, he wouldn't have been embroiled in all those schemes in the first
place. Poor George. And poor Edward. I'm sure he didn't want to execute his
own brother. And poor Richard, caught between them and unable to help
George. Sad all around."

That exactly sums up my feelings towards George! Especially that
third-from-last sentence!
Doug

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





Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-06-30 09:28:57
Hilary Jones
I find the Pastons quite fickle (and absolutely typical of the gentry at that time). One minute they think Edward and the Yorkists are marvellous and the next they're moaning about him because he takes time to receive the petition against Norfolk about their land claims. They did very well under HT. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Doug wrote:

"Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George?"

Carol responds:

George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Fo

2017-06-30 09:32:27
Hilary Jones
Trouble was he'd covered the Edward war story in Henry VI which was his first play(s). To 'do' Edward he'd have to put another slant on it which as you say Doug might not have gone down well at Court! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:20
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Carol wrote:
Luckily for Shakespeare, there was just enough material (fact and legend) available on George to make him an interesting, semi-sympathetic character. (Does he even deal with George's treason in the Henry plays? I've forgotten. I do remember that he makes both George and Richard old enough to have fought at Towton and Wakefield and Edmund a child of twelve. And, of course, George becomes more Richard's victim than Edward's.)
By the way, Edward IV (like Edward V and Henry VII) doesn't even rate a play with his own name, whereas poor feeble-minded Henry VI rates three. Perhaps Will couldn't decide how to tie in a play about Edward IV with what he'd written in Richard III? Did any of the Chronicles/Histories mention Edward's first, and only legal, marriage? I understand Shakespeare mined such works for subject matter and perhaps he decided that a really good play about Edward IV all but required mentioning the charges about Edward marrying Eleanor  and that wouldn't be well-received at Court? 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} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-06-30 09:44:12
Hilary Jones
One gets the impression that the whole thing got on Edward's nerves by the end. There's the famous quote about George and Richard being so skilled in arguing that they could have been lawyers.I agree with you Doug!! I think in the end he gave in to shut them up, and of course if either wife died the lands reverted to their husbands and hence the Crown.You asked earlier about the division of lands in the case of no male heir. Having spent hours, weeks, in IPMs, the practice was usually to divide equally between girls, and if one died, it was divided amongst the others if she left no heir. The solution with Anne Beauchamp's was I recall to give the Warwick/Despenser part to Isabel and the Neville bit to Richard, but there seem to have been some mutual swaps and tweaks. The big row in the original Warwick camp was that Richard Beauchamp's daughters by his first wife Elizabeth Berkeley (including EB's mother) didn't get as much as Anne Beauchamp because she of course inherited from her full brother, even though he and she were children of Beauchamp's second wife. Had she been born a man she would have been one of the most powerful in the kingdom. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 19:03
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Hilary wrote:
Which makes you wonder why Edward let George get his hands on Isabel's (Anne Beauchamp's) lands. It says to me that Edward was even more interested in getting his hands on the lands than curbing George's ambitions. If he'd wanted to curb both his brothers' ambitions he'd have let Anne keep her lands for life - or at least the Warwick/Despenser part.
Doug here:
I don't know if Edward was so anxious to get his own hands on the Beauchamp/Neville/Despenser inheritance, as he was in breaking it up. Edward had seen the power that control of all that land and properties had given Warwick and he didn't want either the Countess, known for her antipathy to Edward, or George to be in a position to exercise that amount of power.
I'm not completely up on ins-and-outs of the finagling over the Countess of Warwick's inheritance, but wasn't it the subject of discussion/s between Edward and George from the very beginning of Edward's return to the throne? There was also Richard's intention to marry Anne to be considered. From what I recollect, from the very beginning Edward was trying to figure out a way of not leaving the entirety of that inheritance in, first the Countess' hands, then George's. Edward accomplished the first via that Act of Parliament treating the Countess' properties as if she were dead. The Attainder on the Earl of Warwick only legally affect his properties, which weren't nearly as important as those held by the Countess in her own right.I have no idea as to why Edward didn't use the same tactic, an Attainder, on the Countess. Wouldn't that have given the disposition of the Beauchamp inheritance to Edward? Then he could have divided it as he saw fit between George and Richard.
I doubt you'll go for it, but perhaps the way Edward treated George regarding the Beauchamp inheritance was Edward trying to be nice? IOW, Edward would have been justified in having the Countess attainted, taking in all her properties, and then disbursing them as Edward saw fit. However, perhaps to ease George's ego, Edward decided to allow George, and Richard, to inherit the Countess' properties; in their own right, actually that of their respective wives, so to speak? Just a thought...
Doug
Who is now wondering why Edward chose having Parliament pass a Bill that treated the Countess' properties as if she were dead, and not an Act of Attainder? Surely, if he the votes for the former, he had the votes for the latter?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.





Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 09:56:09
Hilary Jones
Your last point seems to be true. Some who think this was all set up by Richard (and it doesn't help the case that these people are from Richard's northern circle) point to the establishment of the school at Acaster in the Parliament Rolls of 1484. But we know that Stillington had inherited lands earlier through his mother and he came from a family of rich merchants of York - three of whom had been Chamberlains of the City. However, he did buy land from William Benstead in 1485 for £300 (Horrox) - that's a lot of money but then he'd been in high office either as Chancellor or Bishop for years. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 19:50
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary : Of course the knowledge could have come later from Edward's confessor, John Ingleby, who could only break confession to a senior clergyman and just happened to be the brother of Stillington's nephew. Romane : That seems to be a very interesting hypothesis. Maybe the king's confessor found such a secret too heavy to bear alone, and told it to Stillington in his own confession. It's true that it could seem strange that Edward would have wanted Stillington as his confidant. But then, it means that Stilligton himself broke a very sacred rule for a catholic priest, the secrecy of confession. Doug : My view, as of now anyway, is that Stillington didn't know about the Pre-Contract until some time after the events of 1469/70, and most likely not until after the George affair which would mean after 1478. Mostly my view is based on the reasoning that such a secret as the King not legally being married to EW and, most importantly, his children being illegitimate, once known by more than the immediate participants, Edward, Eleanor, and the officiating priest, wouldn't stay a secret. It couldn't, if only because Edward's actions struck at the very basis of the social order  trying to pass a bastard off as legitimate. Not only as legitimate, but the legal heir to the throne! Romane : Why wouldn't it remain a secret ? Stillington might have kept silent for years (after all, it was something heard in confession), and then have chosen to disclose it to George - or not, if it's not the reason why George was sentenced to death. Anyway,it was clear that the ones who would have dared to utter a word about it would have been efficiently silenced very soon. As it happened : George by death, Stillingon by a stay in the Tower. Doug : 1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known. Romane : You're right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later. Hilary : I don't believe he witnessed it because I doubt Edward would have been stupid enough to choose an ex high-ranking Lancastrian, with a sharp legal mind and a penchant for petitioning the Pope. I do think he could have fallen out of favour because he doesn't come across as an easy man. If could have been something as simple as giving Anne sanctuary in St Martin's? Romane : I agree that Stilligton probably didn't witness it, the reasons you give for that are very good. But the alleged reason for his being sent to the Tower (strangely around the moment when George was executed) was that he had said thing detrimental to the king. So the reason is known and it fits very well with the idea that he could have disclosed the secret to George. A secret that was valuable only after Edward's death. Hilary : Where I do have a problem is Richard going along with something like this, and I do think the scenario of Hastings knowing of the Pre Contract really explains what happened with him - I could never buy him going over to the Woodvilles. If, on the other hand, Stillington didn't tell Richard the truth (i.e. that it was a lie) and Richard because he was a Bishop believed him then I could go with it. Romane : But what would have been Stilligton's interest in telling such a lie to Richard ? As you say, the bishop was taking a huge risk. Besides, he was a member of Edward V's council and wasn't particularly close to Richard. Of course, there is the possibility that the two were accomplice. But Stilligton didn't receive any spectacular reward after his revelation.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 10:22:12
5a10b259d0dd9574e371fa0f856280a9
My thoughts on the general issue relate to the Beauchamp sisters and their family connections.
1. There was a massive quarrel between Warwick and his wife on the one hand, and the other three sisters and their husbands over the Beauchamp inheritance. I'm not at all convinced that Warwick and his wife would have been on "speaking terms" with their in-laws, certainly not when it came to intimate family secrets. Thus it's entirely possible that Warwick would not have been in the loop about the Eleanor Talbot situation.
2. What happened to Eleanor would have been a matter of deep embarrassment, not to say shame, as it touched both on her personal honour and that of her family. The fact she was apparently a religious woman would make it worse, but any decent woman of time would have felt, at best, deeply humiliated. These sort of issues were often kept as quiet as possible, not spread about by the town crier. In practical terms there was little Eleanor and her family could do while Edward IV was in power. They would all have realised that.
3. Margaret Beauchamp-Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, Eleanor's mother, was an extremely formidable woman. She lived until 1468. Given that she would have known the Duchess of York from their Normandy days she might well have used the female influence route and had a quiet word with Cecily. This might well explain the various reports of Cecily's discontent with her eldest son (including the mangled report in More.) Cecily's attitude might have been based on something a lot more substantial than mere snobbery.
4. It was rather convenient for Edward that Lady Shrewsbury died in 1468 and that Eleanor herself also died in the same year, just as her most important surviving relative, the Duchess of Norfolk, was out of the country attending Margaret of York's wedding. I myself have often pondered the significance of the general pardons granted to Elizabeth Talbot and her brother a few months later. It was quite unusual for a married woman to be granted a pardon without reference to her husband, since in all civil matters she was under coverture. This suggests that the pardon was for a "political" offence of some kind.
Brian W.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 11:29:25
Nicholas Brown
Hi,
I'm still catching up and there are some very interesting ideas here. I had been thinking about where Clarence would be on my list of most liked and disliked, but it is difficult to say without knowing more about his motivation. The Woodvilles and Stanleys are particularly contemptible because treachery was rooted in greed, arrogance and self interest. As Doug and Romanemo say, George's treason is the most serious strike against him, but could he have resorted to rebellion because he genuinely felt that the Edward's indulgence of the Woodvilles was detrimental to England and an insult to his father's legacy? If so, he may have rationalized it as having a higher purpose. I also agree that if he had succeeded, history would remember him differently, and of course, the Tudors would have wanted to give Edward a positive spin.
The dispute over the Warwick inheritance also puts him in an unattractive light, especially if he threatened Anne or tried to restrict her freedom. It seems that heiresses were a particularly vulnerable group as Thomas of Woodstock, the Stanleys and a number of other people had made similar attempts to control the fortunes of wealthy young girls. In George's favour, it is possible that he may have been concerned that since Richard was so loyal to Edward, the lands could end up being taken by him and end up with the Woodvilles. Otherwise, he was just being inexcusably avaricious.

The Woodvilles were far from benign and George did seem to have genuine concerns for his safety, which must have been why he tried to send young Warwick to Ireland. The baby probably died of natural causes - as many babies did at the time, but Isabel's death seems more suspicious. She was said to have fallen ill suddenly after drinking ale and died in agony. I'm not sure of the source for this, but in a world where people regularly died of routine illnesses, there must have something that seemed unusual about it that set of George's accusations. If the motive was to suppress knowledge of the pre-contract, then he would no doubt have been next.

Of all George's sins the hardest to justify is the Blaybourne rumour. I can't recall if George was actually spreading the rumour himself, but he doesn't seem to have tried to refute it. It is an especially cruel slur on his own mother, which suggests they weren't close and had a difficult relationship (which makes me think now that he would not have shared what he knew about the pre-contract with her.) Much of George's story could have its origins in unrecorded family business and personal feelings that we don't know about. Could the Blaybourne rumour have actually been true? Why did Edward not give George positions of responsibility, especially if he was highly thought of in his own estates? Was his generosity to George kindness or did George have dangerous knowledge, so it was in Edward's best interest to placate him? What happened to Eleanor and were there any suspicions about her demise from family members like Anne Beauchamp? She did die shortly before George and Warwick turned on Edward.

I also liked the comparison with the Kennedys, as RofY and Cecily do appear to have shared their high expectations and sense of destiny for their family, possibly putting it before personal feelings, which would have coloured the way their children viewed the world.
Nico






On Thursday, 29 June 2017, 15:40:29 GMT+1, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

 

Richard Duke of York had proven very popular in Ireland - 

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 14:07:26
Carol asked:
Side note: Does anyone remember a poem celebrating Edward IV as victor of Barnet or Tewkesbury which has a stanza praising "the duke of Gloucester, young in years" or something like that? I can't find it anywhere. I'd greatly appreciate a link or, failing that, the title and author of the poem.

Hi Carol,
It goes:The Duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce,
Yonge of age and victorius in batayle,
To the honoure of Ectour that he myghte comens,
Gace him folowith, fortune, and good spede.
Fortune hathe hym chosyn, and forthe wyth hym
wil goo,
Her husbonde to be, the wille of God is soo.

It is only one verse of a lengthy poem called "On the Recovery of the Throne by Edward IV", and I found it
in " Richard III: The Toad To Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond and Anne Sutton, 1985. Still a very good book
with personal and official documents from Richard 's lifetime.
Eva

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-06-30 17:29:35
romanenemo
Hi Hilary. The problem of considering that conquest gives some kind of right to the throne, somehow initiated by William I, is precisely that it led to all these civil wars, and to situations such as HT, with his very dubious pedigree, becoming king because, as you said, he got lucky. And the urge to change the king any time he seems weak or unsatisfying would also lead to instability of power. According to a more strict point of view about the succession line, Richard of York, heir of Richard II's heir, was the legitimate king, and not Henry VI, grandson of an usurper. I think the fact that Richard used the verb 'to bind' for his motto is very enlightening. It's not 'loyalty defines me', or 'loyalty is my choice'. Richard felt bound by his oath to Edward and his respect for the law, no matter Edward's shortcomings. In that, he was a modern man, trying to go beyond the endless ring of feudal wars.But I agree that Warwick's conduct was perfectly in accordance with his time. As for George, though, there is also the problem that Edward was his brother, and family solidarity was one of the strong principles of feudal society. So George was indeed disloyal, both according to feudal system and to a more modern one.
As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?
But if the story is true, and if all the english lords followed Edward exemple and accepted pensions from Louis, except Richard, it would be somehow another proof of Richard's particular way of thinking, far from the self-serving one most usual among the medieval lords. For Richard, by asking money to his subject for his war to France, Edward had passed a moral contract with them, and had to do what he had promised to.Or course, Richard's position was in a way a very modern view on a contract between a monarch and his subject, but it was also completely unrealistic in front of the situation at hand. Edward had no chance at all to recover the lost english possession in France and he made the best of what had been dealt to him. To come back to George, if the story of the bribes is true, it's not loyalty that drove him, but greed, again.
And then, there is Richard's attitude after George's death. He seems actually to have lived away from court most of the time, but it was normal because of his duties as 'Lord of the North'.Anyway, I too think that he was disappointed in Edward, as shown especially by what he wrote later in his TR. Was it because of George ? Maybe for a part. Of course, if George was put to death because of Stilligton's secret, Richard couldn't have known it at the time, so a lot of puzzlement and confusion must have been added to his shock and horror at he idea that Edward had killed his own brother. And when Richard, later, knew about the precontract, his disappointment in Edward must have reached the top, at the idea that Edward had killed his brother in order to keep lying to his subjects about the legitimacy of his heir.

Romane

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 00:01:56
justcarol67
Doug wrote:
"1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information  if it was known."

Romane responded:

"You're right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later.

Carol asks:

What good would it have done to reveal the information in 1469 when George was still the heir presumptive and only Edward's daughters would have been illegitimate? Edward's own claim was not affected.

If you have an ace in the hole, you keep it hidden till it can be played. Or is that an ace up your sleeve? But my point is that Stillington would have kept such a dangerous secret (if he knew it) until Edward's death. (I do think it's possible that he told George in 1478, but why then? There seems to be no advantage.)

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 00:25:57
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"Maybe if the Woodvilles hadn't been plotting to crown Edward V before Richard arrived in London and Edward Woodville and the Marquis of Dorset hadn't acted as they did Stillington might not have said anything. Richard would have been Protector and the country would have been safe. However, the Woodvilles did try to rule through young Edward and Stillington would probably have been aware a) how unpopular the Woodvilles were and how greedy and rapacious they were. b) He would also know the dangers of having a boy king with an over mighty family and thought that it would be better for the country if Richard, who had a reputation as a good and capable ruler, was King and so he told what he knew about Edward's marriage to ET."
Carol responds:

You're probably right. Regarding Richard's qualifications, we know exactly what Stillington thought, assuming that he's the author of the petition by the Three Estates quoted in Titulus Regius:

"Over this [the reasons why EV and Warwick are disqualified} we cosidre, howe that Ye be the undoubted Son and Heire of Richard late Duke of Yorke, verray enheritour to the seid Crowne and Dignite Roiall, and as in right Kyng of Englond, by wey of Enheritaunce; and that at ths tyme, the premisses duely considered, there is noon other persoune lyvyng but Ye only, that by Right may clayme the said Coroune and Dignite Royall, by way of Enheritaunce, and howe that Ye be born withyn this Lande; by reason wherof, as we deme in oure myndes, Ye be more naturally enclyned to the prosperite and commen wele of the same; and all the thre Estatis of the Lande have, and may have, more certayn knowlage of youre Byrth and Filiation aboveseid. Wee considre also, the greate Wytte, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse Batalls, whiche as we by experience knowe Ye heretofore have done, for the salvacion and defence of this same Reame; and also the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanic."

Sorry I don't have time to render it into modern English.

Carol


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 07:30:45
Hilary Jones
That's very interesting Brian, thanks. I think JAH came up with the idea that there may have been a reconciliation between Anne B and the Talbot girls at their mother's funeral but who knows?
You know one family we tend to neglect in all this is the Berkeleys (the Talbot girls' grandmother was of course a Berkeley). They have links to most of our key characters and indeed to quite a few rebels later on. H

From: "wainwright.brian@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 30 June 2017, 10:22
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

My thoughts on the general issue relate to the Beauchamp sisters and their family connections.
1. There was a massive quarrel between Warwick and his wife on the one hand, and the other three sisters and their husbands over the Beauchamp inheritance. I'm not at all convinced that Warwick and his wife would have been on "speaking terms" with their in-laws, certainly not when it came to intimate family secrets. Thus it's entirely possible that Warwick would not have been in the loop about the Eleanor Talbot situation.
2. What happened to Eleanor would have been a matter of deep embarrassment, not to say shame, as it touched both on her personal honour and that of her family. The fact she was apparently a religious woman would make it worse, but any decent woman of time would have felt, at best, deeply humiliated. These sort of issues were often kept as quiet as possible, not spread about by the town crier. In practical terms there was little Eleanor and her family could do while Edward IV was in power. They would all have realised that.
3. Margaret Beauchamp-Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, Eleanor's mother, was an extremely formidable woman. She lived until 1468. Given that she would have known the Duchess of York from their Normandy days she might well have used the female influence route and had a quiet word with Cecily. This might well explain the various reports of Cecily's discontent with her eldest son (including the mangled report in More.) Cecily's attitude might have been based on something a lot more substantial than mere snobbery.
4. It was rather convenient for Edward that Lady Shrewsbury died in 1468 and that Eleanor herself also died in the same year, just as her most important surviving relative, the Duchess of Norfolk, was out of the country attending Margaret of York's wedding. I myself have often pondered the significance of the general pardons granted to Elizabeth Talbot and her brother a few months later. It was quite unusual for a married woman to be granted a pardon without reference to her husband, since in all civil matters she was under coverture. This suggests that the pardon was for a "political" offence of some kind.
Brian W.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 08:55:36
Stephen

Any part of Edward IV’s lifetime was a bad time to reveal this.

Two of the Duchess of Norfolk’s servants were executed in 1468-9 as a warning, just months after Eleanor’s convenient death.
Clarence and the Desmonds were also executed and may have known about it

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 01 July 2017 00:02
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Doug wrote:
"1469 saw Edward at his weakest and, to me anyway, that would have been the perfect time to use such information – if it was known."

Romane responded:

"You’re right, so Stilligton probably learnt about it later.

Carol asks:

What good would it have done to reveal the information in 1469 when George was still the heir presumptive and only Edward's daughters would have been illegitimate? Edward's own claim was not affected.

If you have an ace in the hole, you keep it hidden till it can be played. Or is that an ace up your sleeve? But my point is that Stillington would have kept such a dangerous secret (if he knew it) until Edward's death. (I do think it's possible that he told George in 1478, but why then? There seems to be no advantage.)

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 15:36:08
romanenemo
Carol:If you have an ace in the hole, you keep it hidden till it can be played. Or is that an ace up your sleeve? But my point is that Stillington would have kept such a dangerous secret (if he knew it) until Edward's death. (I do think it's possible that he told George in 1478, but why then? There seems to be no advantage.)

Romane:I agree, there seems to be no advantage at all in disclosing the secret before Edward IV's death. But then, why did Edward put his brother to death, for acts that seemed far less serious that what he had done when associated with Warwick ? And I seem to remember that George, among his many accusations against his brother, said that Elizabeth was not his rightful wife. Of course, this could only allude to the fact that she was too low born for him, and that he had married her in secret. But there is also the horoscope. Why would George have been interested in Edward's horoscope in 1477, as his brother had theorically two heirs before himself ?Maybe Stilligton unintentionally said something that put George on the path, or maybe Edward thought he knew more than he actually did.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 18:38:46
Hilary Jones
My real problem with this is that I don't have Stillington as a kingmaker. He was someone who looked after himself, not the good of the realm, and there was a real risk in revealing all this to Richard if Richard decided not to believe.
So I think someone must have 'persuaded' him to do it. Someone who would gain if Richard, or shall we say not Edward V, was on the throne. There I have two candidates, Anne Beauchamp and Cis - with Buckingham as an outsider.
Of course the latter brings us to the question as to whether Buckingham had prior knowledge that all this was about to happen. He did seem to step in at just the right moment. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 July 2017, 0:26
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?




Mary wrote:

"Maybe if the Woodvilles hadn't been plotting to crown Edward V before Richard arrived in London and Edward Woodville and the Marquis of Dorset hadn't acted as they did Stillington might not have said anything. Richard would have been Protector and the country would have been safe. However, the Woodvilles did try to rule through young Edward and Stillington would probably have been aware a) how unpopular the Woodvilles were and how greedy and rapacious they were. b) He would also know the dangers of having a boy king with an over mighty family and thought that it would be better for the country if Richard, who had a reputation as a good and capable ruler, was King and so he told what he knew about Edward's marriage to ET."
Carol responds:

You're probably right. Regarding Richard's qualifications, we know exactly what Stillington thought, assuming that he's the author of the petition by the Three Estates quoted in Titulus Regius:

"Over this [the reasons why EV and Warwick are disqualified} we cosidre, howe that Ye be the undoubted Son and Heire of Richard late Duke of Yorke, verray enheritour to the seid Crowne and Dignite Roiall, and as in right Kyng of Englond, by wey of Enheritaunce; and that at ths tyme, the premisses duely considered, there is noon other persoune lyvyng but Ye only, that by Right may clayme the said Coroune and Dignite Royall, by way of Enheritaunce, and howe that Ye be born withyn this Lande; by reason wherof, as we deme in oure myndes, Ye be more naturally enclyned to the prosperite and commen wele of the same; and all the thre Estatis of the Lande have, and may have, more certayn knowlage of youre Byrth and Filiation aboveseid. Wee considre also, the greate Wytte, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse Batalls, whiche as we by experience knowe Ye heretofore have done, for the salvacion and defence of this same Reame; and also the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanic."

Sorry I don't have time to render it into modern English.

Carol




Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-07-01 20:29:13
justcarol67
Carol earlier:

"George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits."

Hilary responded:

"I find the Pastons quite fickle (and absolutely typical of the gentry at that time). One minute they think Edward and the Yorkists are marvellous and the next they're moaning about him because he takes time to receive the petition against Norfolk about their land claims. They did very well under HT."

Carol again:

Sorry to be unclear. I only meant that Edward, then Earl of March, had no reason to suspect that the Pastons might be plotting against him (he could not have anticipated their later behavior). But the important point was that he had even less reason to suspect little brother George, who, like the rest of the family, must have been desperately hoping that his father would defeat MoA and become king.

Carol


From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Doug wrote:

"Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George?"

Carol responds:

George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 22:43:36
justcarol67
Eva wrote:

"Hi Carol,
It goes:The Duke of Glocetter, that nobill prynce,
Yonge of age and victorius in batayle,
To the honoure of Ectour that he myghte comens,
Gace him folowith, fortune, and good spede.
Fortune hathe hym chosyn, and forthe wyth hym
wil goo,
Her husbonde to be, the wille of God is soo.

"It is only one verse of a lengthy poem called "On the Recovery of the Throne by Edward IV", and I found it
in " Richard III: The Toad To Bosworth Field" by P.W. Hammond and Anne Sutton, 1985. Still a very good book
with personal and official documents from Richard 's lifetime."

Carol responds:

Thanks very much, Eva. I've been looking for it but couldn't find it, possibly because I was searching for "yonge in years" with a modern spelling of "Gloucester." I have that book but didn't think to look there because I thought it dealt with Richard as king. Will have to take another look as it may contain other documents that I'm looking for.

Love your typo. Maybe you had Shakespeare in the back of your mind.

Thanks again. You've saved me a lot of trouble.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-01 22:58:49
justcarol67

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-02 00:02:08
romanenemo
Thank you, Carol. Commynes is indeed a perfectly reliable source for Louis XI bribing not only Edward, but all his closest followers as well. I think this story illustrates in a particularly strong way the fact that Shakespeare's Richard, the devious, crafty, self-serving plotter, is somehow the opposite of the true Richard. Once Edward had made his decision, Richard might as well have accompanied him at Picquigny and avoid making himself singular by taking Louis's money as well. There was no benefit in doing what he did. But he'd rather irritate (and maybe secretly shame) his brother and offend a powerful neighbor, than compromise with his conscience. Probably he dreamed of military prowess as well, as shown by his later remark about how much he'd have liked to go fighting the infidels.
I'm not sure that another attitude would have changed anything about the French's support to Henry Tudor, though. France had supported Lancaster for a long time already, and it was in the Regent's interest to keep Richard busy, or to have a new and (supposedly) grateful king on the throne of England. Anne of Beaujeu was only following her father's policy : 'divide and rule'.
---In , <justcarol67@...> wrote :


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-02 10:36:34
romanenemo
Hilary:My real problem with this is that I don't have Stillington as a kingmaker. He was someone who looked after himself, not the good of the realm, and there was a real risk in revealing all this to Richard if Richard decided not to believe.So I think someone must have 'persuaded' him to do it. Someone who would gain if Richard, or shall we say not Edward V, was on the throne.

Romane:But if Stillington only looked after himself, that 'someone' who would have persuaded him to talk must have had something to dangle in front of him. And we know that Stilligton didn't get any profit from his revelations.Same thing if Richard was that someone and if the whole story was a lie. Which would indeed be the most plausible solution, had Stillington benefited from Richard's access to the throne, and hadn't he not been previously imprisoned by Edward for having said things 'detrimental to the crown'.
Even if Stilligton mostly looked after himself, we mustn't underestimate the religious beliefs of the people of the time. Now that he was no longer coerced into silence, he might have feared the wrath of God if he let someone who had not right to it be anointed as the new king of England.


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

My real problem with this is that I don't have Stillington as a kingmaker. He was someone who looked after himself, not the good of the realm, and there was a real risk in revealing all this to Richard if Richard decided not to believe.
So I think someone must have 'persuaded' him to do it. Someone who would gain if Richard, or shall we say not Edward V, was on the throne. There I have two candidates, Anne Beauchamp and Cis - with Buckingham as an outsider.
Of course the latter brings us to the question as to whether Buckingham had prior knowledge that all this was about to happen. He did seem to step in at just the right moment. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 July 2017, 0:26
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?




Mary wrote:

"Maybe if the Woodvilles hadn't been plotting to crown Edward V before Richard arrived in London and Edward Woodville and the Marquis of Dorset hadn't acted as they did Stillington might not have said anything. Richard would have been Protector and the country would have been safe. However, the Woodvilles did try to rule through young Edward and Stillington would probably have been aware a) how unpopular the Woodvilles were and how greedy and rapacious they were. b) He would also know the dangers of having a boy king with an over mighty family and thought that it would be better for the country if Richard, who had a reputation as a good and capable ruler, was King and so he told what he knew about Edward's marriage to ET."
Carol responds:

You're probably right. Regarding Richard's qualifications, we know exactly what Stillington thought, assuming that he's the author of the petition by the Three Estates quoted in Titulus Regius:

"Over this [the reasons why EV and Warwick are disqualified} we cosidre, howe that Ye be the undoubted Son and Heire of Richard late Duke of Yorke, verray enheritour to the seid Crowne and Dignite Roiall, and as in right Kyng of Englond, by wey of Enheritaunce; and that at ths tyme, the premisses duely considered, there is noon other persoune lyvyng but Ye only, that by Right may clayme the said Coroune and Dignite Royall, by way of Enheritaunce, and howe that Ye be born withyn this Lande; by reason wherof, as we deme in oure myndes, Ye be more naturally enclyned to the prosperite and commen wele of the same; and all the thre Estatis of the Lande have, and may have, more certayn knowlage of youre Byrth and Filiation aboveseid. Wee considre also, the greate Wytte, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse Batalls, whiche as we by experience knowe Ye heretofore have done, for the salvacion and defence of this same Reame; and also the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanic."

Sorry I don't have time to render it into modern English.

Carol





Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-02 17:54:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I often wondered why Ireland and not Burgundy. Was it because he was born in Dublin? In this case, Margaret would have seemed the obvious choice. Interesting how Ireland features occasionally. Somewhere else I need to no more of. Doug here: Perhaps because Ireland was considered not to be foreign? At least in the sense that Burgundy would have been? Also, wasn't Ireland, during this period, treated much as Wales was; part of the king's dominions, but not the same as England? 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} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-07-02 18:18:45
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, re your first post I think two of the three - Eleanor and priest - were dead. Marie came up with a candidate priest from nearby Paulerspury or Potterspury (can't remember which) who died soon afterwards. But I do agree; it is strange that there were no rumours. Doug here: The lack of any known rumors might be explained in one of two ways; the first being that there simply weren't any and the second because, once Tudor took the throne, putting such rumors on paper, such as in a Chronicle, would ensure that volume never say the light of day (and the composer enjoyed a long spell in some cell...). However, as best I recollect, there also weren't any rumors in, say, France, where there wouldn't have been any such obstacles to defaming the parentage of Elizabeth of York. Hilary continued: I do agree with most of the rest of what you say. That's a very good point about Warwick and MOA and I think goes a long way to quashing the theory that Warwick and Clarence knew. I still think there's room for Clarence to have acquired the knowledge between then and his death though. We don't know how Anne Beauchamp would have lashed out in private when deprived of her lands by Edward. Of course an 'alliance' between Clarence and Stillington may not have been about the Pre Contract. Both are deep in rebel territory. Doug here: Currently I'm leaning towards George never knowing, but Edward not being certain George didn't know. Thus any actions by George, such as trying to send his son out of England, would set off alarms in Edward. And, as I suggested in my post, right now I think all Edward wanted was to place George in a position where George couldn't cause any trouble. If George was executed because he'd learned about the Pre-Contract, would he have kept his source confidential? Even when threatened with death? I just don't know... Hilary concluded: FWIW my money would be on Father Ingleby (later Bishop of LLandaff). The Inglebys were a religious family, for them to harbour such a secret on the death of Edward would be an enormous burden and they were also in Richard's circle, so if it came by them, he would trust them. I also agree that EW couldn't have known - she would have beaten Edward up far too much! Doug here: What do you think of my idea from another post that the knowledge of the Pre-Contract was passed on via a death-bed confession, not the confessional? Of course, that death-bed confession might easily have been by a priest to, say, a bishop, but would such a confession be necessarily bound by the seal of confession? My knowledge about the possible differences between the two is, to say the least, scanty. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-02 18:34:30
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Hi Romanenemo, the problem is, if you go by this, every king since Edward the Confessor is not the legitimate king! Under our unwritten 'constitution' kings gained the throne either by inheritance or conquest. So William I, Henry IV (Bolingbroke), Edward IV, Henry VII and arguably William III are all kings by right of conquest, regardless of whether they should have been or not. In other words, the strongest or the luckiest (in the case of HT) wins. As I said in my post to Mary, a weak king brought out the bully boys. One thing I reckon Shakespeare got absolutely right was busying idle minds with foreign quarrels (Henry V); not a good long term strategy but a clever short-term one. Which reminds me, George did seem very loyal in 1475 and it was Richard who was the naughty boy then. Does seem to point even more to Isabel's death being some sort of mental trigger. The other thing which has come to me is that after George's death Richard was seen rarely at court (forget which source, Croyland?). Now Richard valued loyalty above everything so he couldn't have thought George had done something that bad? And was he too now very disillusioned with Edward? I agree very much with your comments about MOA etc. Doug here: One quibble about William III. Wasn't he offered the throne on the presumption that James II/VII, by his flight, had abdicated? I've read that William didn't want his becoming King to have the appearance of his being elected which, basically, is what happened in the case of George I. Do we have any records of how much Richard was seen at Court before George's execution? Is it a case of Richard being occupied with affairs in the North and, rather than trust any lieutenant, staying there to manage things himself and, at a later period, Richard's absence being put down to George's execution? For that matter, how often was George seen at Court? He was residing even closer than Richard. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-02 18:40:58
daviddurose2000
Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-02 18:51:10
Doug Stamate
Nicholas wrote: //snip// Of all George's sins the hardest to justify is the Blaybourne rumour. I can't recall if George was actually spreading the rumour himself, but he doesn't seem to have tried to refute it. It is an especially cruel slur on his own mother, which suggests they weren't close and had a difficult relationship (which makes me think now that he would not have shared what he knew about the pre-contract with her.) Much of George's story could have its origins in unrecorded family business and personal feelings that we don't know about. Could the Blaybourne rumour have actually been true? Why did Edward not give George positions of responsibility, especially if he was highly thought of in his own estates? Was his generosity to George kindness or did George have dangerous knowledge, so it was in Edward's best interest to placate him? What happened to Eleanor and were there any suspicions about her demise from family members like Anne Beauchamp? She did die shortly before George and Warwick turned on Edward.
//snip// Doug here: First off, sorry for snipping so much of your post (very interesting, BTW)! Do we know when the Blaybourne rumor first appeared? Was George responsible for its' original dissemination, or did he simply latch onto it as a means of boosting his claim to the throne once he'd sided with Warwick? Either way, George's willingness to publicly slander his mother doesn't work in his favor. The thought also occurred to me that we know what Edward did in regards to George after the events of 1469/70, but I don't recall how Edward treated George in the period before then. George was Edward's heir until the birth of Edward's son Edward of Westminster in November, 1470. How did Edward treat George during this period? Personally, I think Edward's treatment of George after Edward returned to the throne is fully explained by George's actions, but I don't know if Edward was already treating George in a similar manner earlier. 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} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-07-02 19:14:26
romanenemo
Doug:What do you think of my idea from another post that the knowledge of the Pre-Contract was passed on via a death-bed confession, not the confessional? Of course, that death-bed confession might easily have been by a priest to, say, a bishop, but would such a confession be necessarily bound by the seal of confession? My knowledge about the possible differences between the two is, to say the least, scanty.

Romane:A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England's anointed king.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-02 19:42:53
Carol, you are welcome!
Eva

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-03 01:15:29
justcarol67
Davod wrote:

"Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time."

Carol responds:

Thanks, David. I should have checked to see whether he had changed sides. But my point was that he was the authority for Richard's refusing to take bribes at Picquigny and that in this instance (as opposed to his suppositions about Richard and his nephews), he can be considered reliable since he actually witnessed the negotiations.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-03 01:41:31
justcarol67
Romane wrote:

"I think that Richard knew nothing before Stiligton's revelation, for it seems that he was genuinely planning to crown his nephew in the beginning. But I agree, he was certainly devastated. It's obvious that he was completely devoted to Edward in his youth. Then, maybe, they might have somehow drifted apart, being so different and living so far from each other. But to discover that Edward had lied to him that much was certainly terrible for him. Or so it seems, considering how harshly his once beloved brother's reign is criticized in the Titulus Regius and in some other of Richard's proclamations as a king. All these passages about Edward's bad counselors, encouraging his debauched ways, about the complete lack of moral and order during Edward's reign& Was it really necessary in order to convince people of Richard's right to rule ? He was the rightful king because one of his nephew was a bastard and the other was attainted. Not because Edward had been a bad ruler. But maybe this is Richard' s way of venting his bitter disappointment in his deceitful and irresponsible brother."

Carol responds:

Although people sometimes consider that Titulus Regius reflects Richard's views, I think it's important to remember that he didn't write it. It was originally presented to him the Three Estates and later ratified by Richard's Parliament, but its purpose was, first, to persuade him to take the crown and, second, to present all the reasons why he was the best man for the job and why Edward's offspring weren't qualified. That included charges of witchcraft related to Edward's marriage and criticism of the previous reign. Yes, Richard implicitly endorsed the contents by accepting the crown, but what choice did he have?

Given HT's treatment of Stillington in the next reign, he was almost certainly the author though he may have had help in the drafting, and the Three Estates probably had something to say about the contents. They certainly seem to have found the petition persuasive after having heard Stillington's evidence, whatever it may have been. Also, criticizing the previous reign would be par for the course in switching to a new king (other than the old king's son) even if, in this case, that king was the new king's brother.

But I don't think we can consider it Richard's way of venting his frustration given that he didn't write it. Whether he agreed with all the arguments is impossible to say. We only know that he accepted the crown and that he must have believed the main argument--that he alone in the realm was qualified to wear it.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-03 09:45:45
Paul Trevor Bale
Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-03 11:59:07
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
I can't find the original source for George's Blaybourne allegations, but it seems that Warwick made the allegations in 1469, while George repeated them around around the time of the Ankarette Twynho affair. I wish I had the JA-H book to hand, but I read a library copy a few year ago. Internet references on this are sketchy.

Before 1469, George had been made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1462. He would only have been 12/13 at the time, and he did keep the position until his death. However, I can't see references to other significant responsibilities, such as being a militiary commander like Richard. Perhaps, he wasn't inclined towards being a warrior, and it is possible that he could have felt sidelined, underestimated and not taken seriously in a family with a strong military tradition. He reminds me a bit of Fredo in the Godfather series, the middle brother who couldn't prove himself, betrays the family and ends up being executed by drowning. Sonny and Michael have shades of Edward and Richard too.

Nico

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-07-03 15:20:53
Doug Stamate
und Romane wrote: A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England' s anointed king. Doug here: I knew I phrased my question badly. What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional? There's nothing sinful about officiating at a marriage; any sin would have been in not coming forward when either of the two already-married persons went through another marriage ceremony, or announced they'd gone through another marriage ceremony. IOW, could a priest relate to another priest, or a bishop, that he'd officiated at a marriage between Edward and Eleanor and then ask for absolution for not coming forward when Edward announced that he was married to Elizabeth Woodville? Because it seems to me that, if one act doesn't require penance then that act wouldn't necessarily be bound by the confessional seal. Could that dying priest, presuming that was the method of transmission of the knowledge of the Pre-Contract, have first told, say, Stillington, that he, the priest, had officiated at a marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor and Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Death-bed "confessions"

2017-07-03 15:52:38
Doug Stamate
Romane wrote: A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England' s anointed king. Doug here: I knew I phrased my question badly. What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional? I know that in law a death-bed statement has been (still is?) considered the equivalent of a sworn statement and can be accepted in court as such. Could this have been the way Stillington, or whoever, received the knowledge of the Pre-Contract? Because, or so it seems to me, there'd be no need for a priest to ask for absolution for performing a marriage ceremony! Any request for absolution would be because he hadn't come forward when one of the two he'd married announced their marriage to another person. And those are two completely separate things. I'm not a theologian nor a legal expert, but is the above possible? Doug Who apologizes for hitting the Send button too by accident!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-07-03 16:58:35
Bale Paul Trevor
Let's not forget that Anne Boleyn's confession to Cranmer was overheard. But was Stillington actually Edward's confessor? I doubt it. A bishop is rarely that. Anne Boleyn's was a rare occasion, her being queen. Don't recall reading anywhere of who Edward's confessor was.Paul

On 3 Jul 2017, at 16:20, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

und Romane wrote: A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England' s anointed king. Doug here:I knew I phrased my question badly.What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional?There's nothing sinful about officiating at a marriage; any sin would have been in not coming forward when either of the two already-married persons went through another marriage ceremony, or announced they'd gone through another marriage ceremony.IOW, could a priest relate to another priest, or a bishop, that he'd officiated at a marriage between Edward and Eleanor and then ask for absolution for not coming forward when Edward announced that he was married to Elizabeth Woodville?Because it seems to me that, if one act doesn't require penance then that act wouldn't necessarily be bound by the confessional seal.Could that dying priest, presuming that was the method of transmission of the knowledge of the Pre-Contract, have first told, say, Stillington, that he, the priest, had officiated at a marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor and Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-03 17:41:10
ricard1an
A few years ago in the Bulletin there was an article about Margaret of Burgundy asking for Edward's help, I can't remember against who. I think that Charles was dead by then, anyway from what I remember, Edward refused his help but Hastings went to her aid. It might have been when he was Captain of Calais and I am almost sure that it said that Richard joined him. So maybe, while he was loyal to Edward over most things, if he thought that Edward was doing the wrong thing then he might not have been so loyal as we saw at the Treaty of Picquiny I wonder if anyone else remembers the article.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2017-07-03 19:15:07
romanenemo
The confessor hypothesis is a good one, but I seem to remember that some sources say that Stillington claimed that he had married Edward and Eleanor himself. I agree it seems unlikely that Edward would have taken Stilligton as a confident, rather than some unimportant priest, though.
Romane

Re: Death-bed "confessions"

2017-07-03 19:25:28
romanenemo
Doug:I knew I phrased my question badly.What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional?I know that in law a death-bed statement has been (still is?) considered the equivalent of a sworn statement and can be accepted in court as such. Could this have been the way Stillington, or whoever, received the knowledge of the Pre-Contract? Because, or so it seems to me, there'd be no need for a priest to ask for absolution for performing a marriage ceremony! Any request for absolution would be because he hadn't come forward when one of the two he'd married announced their marriage to another person. And those are two completely separate things.I'm not a theologian nor a legal expert, but is the above possible?
Romane:You make a good point in making the difference between confession and death-bed statement. For if it was a confession, the priest who would have supposedly married Edward and Eleanor wouldn't have had to give any name. All he had to say to get his absolution was that he had kept silent when the anonymous married man had decided to take a second wife, thus becoming a bigamist.On another hand, a death-bed statement from the same priest, who would have considered that he hadn't the right to let such a secret die with him, would be very plausible, and the recipient of that statement perfectly allowed to disclose it.But as I wrote in another post, I wonder if Stilligton didn't say that he had married the Edward and Eleanor himself. But maybe it doesn't come from a reliable source ?

Re: Death-bed "confessions"

2017-07-03 21:10:08
Nance Crawford
ÿ Even if Stillington had later received Edward's formal confession of the stupidity and lust that led him to the Elenor Butler plight troth, although Stillington was bound to secrecy of that particular confession, he would not be bound by any oath if, beforehand, he had actually witnessed and been part of the event. It is/was just as forbidden to take an oath to support a lie, and just as damning for the soul, to this day. I don't find it difficult to believe that Stillington, aging, knowing the ins and outs of his long relationship with Edward, knowing the character of the participants, might have taken a crisis of conscience to his own confessor and been reminded of the fact that, at his age, he had better make his peace with God by telling the truth, or irrevocably destroy his own immortal soul. Nance ----- Original Message ----- From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] To: Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 7:52 AM Subject: Re: Death-bed "confessions"

Romane wrote: A death-bed confession is not different on that matter. It's bound by the seal of confession all the same. But if Stilligton learnt that way about the precontract, he might have wondered whether he'd offend God more by disclosing something heard in confession, of by letting a bastard become England' s anointed king. Doug here: I knew I phrased my question badly. What I'm wondering about is whether, information passed on by someone on their death-bed would necessarily have to be under the seal of the confessional? I know that in law a death-bed statement has been (still is?) considered the equivalent of a sworn statement and can be accepted in court as such. Could this have been the way Stillington, or whoever, received the knowledge of the Pre-Contract? Because, or so it seems to me, there'd be no need for a priest to ask for absolution for performing a marriage ceremony! Any request for absolution would be because he hadn't come forward when one of the two he'd married announced their marriage to another person. And those are two completely separate things. I'm not a theologian nor a legal expert, but is the above possible? Doug Who apologizes for hitting the Send button too by accident!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 14:08:18
Hilary Jones
I don't remember the article Mary but it is quite well-known. Yes it was after Charles's death and Margaret requested help. Richard wanted to help and Edward forbade him. Hastings did help from Calais but Edward found out and called him home. Another of Edward's less lovely traits and another reason why I like Hastings. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017, 17:41
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

A few years ago in the Bulletin there was an article about Margaret of Burgundy asking for Edward's help, I can't remember against who. I think that Charles was dead by then, anyway from what I remember, Edward refused his help but Hastings went to her aid. It might have been when he was Captain of Calais and I am almost sure that it said that Richard joined him. So maybe, while he was loyal to Edward over most things, if he thought that Edward was doing the wrong thing then he might not have been so loyal as we saw at the Treaty of Picquiny I wonder if anyone else remembers the article.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 14:15:21
Hilary Jones
I think it's quite likely that Stillington had a hand in drafting TR - he was about the best lawyer of the age. It doesn't necessarily mean he put his moral feelings into it though; in fact he was the last one to talk! What does confuse things I reckon is Commynes leaping to the conclusion that because he was associated with the revelation of the Pre Contract and he probably drafted TR, he witnessed the actual 'ceremony". That I think, for reasons I've said before, is most unlikely. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 3 July 2017, 1:41
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Romane wrote:

"I think that Richard knew nothing before Stiligton's revelation, for it seems that he was genuinely planning to crown his nephew in the beginning. But I agree, he was certainly devastated. It's obvious that he was completely devoted to Edward in his youth. Then, maybe, they might have somehow drifted apart, being so different and living so far from each other. But to discover that Edward had lied to him that much was certainly terrible for him. Or so it seems, considering how harshly his once beloved brother's reign is criticized in the Titulus Regius and in some other of Richard's proclamations as a king. All these passages about Edward's bad counselors, encouraging his debauched ways, about the complete lack of moral and order during Edward's reign& Was it really necessary in order to convince people of Richard's right to rule ? He was the rightful king because one of his nephew was a bastard and the other was attainted. Not because Edward had been a bad ruler. But maybe this is Richard' s way of venting his bitter disappointment in his deceitful and irresponsible brother."

Carol responds:

Although people sometimes consider that Titulus Regius reflects Richard's views, I think it's important to remember that he didn't write it. It was originally presented to him the Three Estates and later ratified by Richard's Parliament, but its purpose was, first, to persuade him to take the crown and, second, to present all the reasons why he was the best man for the job and why Edward's offspring weren't qualified. That included charges of witchcraft related to Edward's marriage and criticism of the previous reign. Yes, Richard implicitly endorsed the contents by accepting the crown, but what choice did he have?

Given HT's treatment of Stillington in the next reign, he was almost certainly the author though he may have had help in the drafting, and the Three Estates probably had something to say about the contents. They certainly seem to have found the petition persuasive after having heard Stillington's evidence, whatever it may have been. Also, criticizing the previous reign would be par for the course in switching to a new king (other than the old king's son) even if, in this case, that king was the new king's brother.

But I don't think we can consider it Richard's way of venting his frustration given that he didn't write it. Whether he agreed with all the arguments is impossible to say. We only know that he accepted the crown and that he must have believed the main argument--that he alone in the realm was qualified to wear it.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 14:20:15
Hilary Jones
I was actually joking about Richard being 'naughty' Romane and Carol. Unfortunately, though, it did come back to bite him in 1483. I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017, 18:41
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-05 14:26:52
Hilary Jones
Catching up Doug!
Yes William was indeed approached to take the throne but he did amass a huge invasion force which wasn't needed because of James's nosebleed.
I don't know the answer to your second question but if I had to guess I would say not much. For one thing Edward kept Richard so busy dashing all over the country that I doubt there was little time. I suppose we could look at the YHB and see how often they wrote to him in London. I would imagine the period when he was arguing over Warwick's lands was the time he spent the most there, but I truly don't know. And as you say, Croyland could be doing a bit of embroidering. As for George I believe he inherited Warwick's house, the Eber, in London but he seems also to have spent quite a bit of time in Warwick and Farliegh - hence he is so well remembered at both. I doubt the Woodvilles encouraged the presence of either brother. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017, 18:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote: Hi Romanenemo, the problem is, if you go by this, every king since Edward the Confessor is not the legitimate king! Under our unwritten 'constitution' kings gained the throne either by inheritance or conquest. So William I, Henry IV (Bolingbroke), Edward IV, Henry VII and arguably William III are all kings by right of conquest, regardless of whether they should have been or not. In other words, the strongest or the luckiest (in the case of HT) wins. As I said in my post to Mary, a weak king brought out the bully boys. One thing I reckon Shakespeare got absolutely right was busying idle minds with foreign quarrels (Henry V); not a good long term strategy but a clever short-term one. Which reminds me, George did seem very loyal in 1475 and it was Richard who was the naughty boy then. Does seem to point even more to Isabel's death being some sort of mental trigger. The other thing which has come to me is that after George's death Richard was seen rarely at court (forget which source, Croyland?). Now Richard valued loyalty above everything so he couldn't have thought George had done something that bad? And was he too now very disillusioned with Edward? I agree very much with your comments about MOA etc. Doug here: One quibble about William III. Wasn't he offered the throne on the presumption that James II/VII, by his flight, had abdicated? I've read that William didn't want his becoming King to have the appearance of his being elected which, basically, is what happened in the case of George I. Do we have any records of how much Richard was seen at Court before George's execution? Is it a case of Richard being occupied with affairs in the North and, rather than trust any lieutenant, staying there to manage things himself and, at a later period, Richard's absence being put down to George's execution? For that matter, how often was George seen at Court? He was residing even closer than Richard. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-05 14:27:45
Hilary Jones
Yes, the are listed separately as kings of Ireland - and of France! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017, 17:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote: I often wondered why Ireland and not Burgundy. Was it because he was born in Dublin? In this case, Margaret would have seemed the obvious choice. Interesting how Ireland features occasionally. Somewhere else I need to no more of. Doug here: Perhaps because Ireland was considered not to be foreign? At least in the sense that Burgundy would have been? Also, wasn't Ireland, during this period, treated much as Wales was; part of the king's dominions, but not the same as England? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 14:30:37
Hilary Jones
I reckon Stillington would be more likely to fear the wrath of the Pope than God. I have him very much as lawyer first, priest second, but I do think that knowledge would be very difficult for anyone to live with for long. After all, they wouldn't know who else might know. H



From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017, 10:36
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary:My real problem with this is that I don't have Stillington as a kingmaker. He was someone who looked after himself, not the good of the realm, and there was a real risk in revealing all this to Richard if Richard decided not to believe.So I think someone must have 'persuaded' him to do it. Someone who would gain if Richard, or shall we say not Edward V, was on the throne.

Romane:But if Stillington only looked after himself, that 'someone' who would have persuaded him to talk must have had something to dangle in front of him. And we know that Stilligton didn't get any profit from his revelations.Same thing if Richard was that someone and if the whole story was a lie. Which would indeed be the most plausible solution, had Stillington benefited from Richard's access to the throne, and hadn't he not been previously imprisoned by Edward for having said things 'detrimental to the crown'.
Even if Stilligton mostly looked after himself, we mustn't underestimate the religious beliefs of the people of the time. Now that he was no longer coerced into silence, he might have feared the wrath of God if he let someone who had not right to it be anointed as the new king of England.


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

My real problem with this is that I don't have Stillington as a kingmaker. He was someone who looked after himself, not the good of the realm, and there was a real risk in revealing all this to Richard if Richard decided not to believe.
So I think someone must have 'persuaded' him to do it. Someone who would gain if Richard, or shall we say not Edward V, was on the throne. There I have two candidates, Anne Beauchamp and Cis - with Buckingham as an outsider.
Of course the latter brings us to the question as to whether Buckingham had prior knowledge that all this was about to happen. He did seem to step in at just the right moment. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 July 2017, 0:26
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?




Mary wrote:

"Maybe if the Woodvilles hadn't been plotting to crown Edward V before Richard arrived in London and Edward Woodville and the Marquis of Dorset hadn't acted as they did Stillington might not have said anything. Richard would have been Protector and the country would have been safe. However, the Woodvilles did try to rule through young Edward and Stillington would probably have been aware a) how unpopular the Woodvilles were and how greedy and rapacious they were. b) He would also know the dangers of having a boy king with an over mighty family and thought that it would be better for the country if Richard, who had a reputation as a good and capable ruler, was King and so he told what he knew about Edward's marriage to ET."
Carol responds:

You're probably right. Regarding Richard's qualifications, we know exactly what Stillington thought, assuming that he's the author of the petition by the Three Estates quoted in Titulus Regius:

"Over this [the reasons why EV and Warwick are disqualified} we cosidre, howe that Ye be the undoubted Son and Heire of Richard late Duke of Yorke, verray enheritour to the seid Crowne and Dignite Roiall, and as in right Kyng of Englond, by wey of Enheritaunce; and that at ths tyme, the premisses duely considered, there is noon other persoune lyvyng but Ye only, that by Right may clayme the said Coroune and Dignite Royall, by way of Enheritaunce, and howe that Ye be born withyn this Lande; by reason wherof, as we deme in oure myndes, Ye be more naturally enclyned to the prosperite and commen wele of the same; and all the thre Estatis of the Lande have, and may have, more certayn knowlage of youre Byrth and Filiation aboveseid. Wee considre also, the greate Wytte, Prudence, Justice, Princely Courage, and the memorable and laudable Acts in diverse Batalls, whiche as we by experience knowe Ye heretofore have done, for the salvacion and defence of this same Reame; and also the greate noblesse and excellence of your Byrth and Blode, as of hym that is descended of the thre moost Royall houses in Cristendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispanic."

Sorry I don't have time to render it into modern English.

Carol







Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and Clare

2017-07-05 14:36:22
Hilary Jones
Sorry Carol, what I was trying to say is that people's perceptions of other people (I'm talking about what the Pastons thought of Edward at that point) is often based on whether Edward was being a 'good egg' to them. When he didn't sort out their affairs as they wanted in the late 1470s they soon changed their tune about him. It's nothing to do with loyalty or such high-flying things, its about what I can get out of the king at any particular point and I go off him when he doesn't do what I want.
I agree neither they, nor George, had a reason to be meddling at this point. H


From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 1 July 2017, 20:29
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Carol earlier:

"George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits."

Hilary responded:

"I find the Pastons quite fickle (and absolutely typical of the gentry at that time). One minute they think Edward and the Yorkists are marvellous and the next they're moaning about him because he takes time to receive the petition against Norfolk about their land claims. They did very well under HT."

Carol again:

Sorry to be unclear. I only meant that Edward, then Earl of March, had no reason to suspect that the Pastons might be plotting against him (he could not have anticipated their later behavior). But the important point was that he had even less reason to suspect little brother George, who, like the rest of the family, must have been desperately hoping that his father would defeat MoA and become king.

Carol

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 29 June 2017, 18:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Doug wrote:

"Then again, Edward may have not been the loving brother depicted in the Paston letters. George was Edward's heir at that point, perhaps Edward was just checking up on what George was up? Or, possibly, the adults accompanying George?"

Carol responds:

George was a child of about eleven who had not yet lost his father, and Edward was still the Earl of March, only about eighteen himself. Nothing for George to be up to, really. (Or the Pastons, either.) And Edward was also visiting Richard and Margaret. Their mother, as I said in another post, had gone to join their father. Whether they had loyal servants such as nurses with them, I can't say, but I'll bet they were feeling neglected and glad of the visits.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 15:08:33
ricard1an
Thank you Hilary.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 15:15:13
ricard1an
Also he would probably realize that if young Edward was King then Richard's days would probably be numbered once Edward came of age and that England under the Woodvilles would not be a very good place to be.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-05 16:47:26
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I was actually joking about Richard being 'naughty' Romane and Carol. Unfortunately, though, it did come back to bite him in 1483. I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities. Doug here: Personally, I think it was those bribes; and in cash yet! It made Edward look too much like a common bandit! Now, had the French king bought Edward off by ceding some castles around Calais... Doug Who's also been know to be a bit naughty...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-05 17:14:13
Hilary Jones
Yes I think it was those bribes too. And Richard's belief that it was the inherent right of English kings to be King of France. A title he used himself. Yes 'naughty' is a nice word :) H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 16:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote: I was actually joking about Richard being 'naughty' Romane and Carol. Unfortunately, though, it did come back to bite him in 1483. I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities. Doug here: Personally, I think it was those bribes; and in cash yet! It made Edward look too much like a common bandit! Now, had the French king bought Edward off by ceding some castles around Calais... Doug Who's also been know to be a bit naughty...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-05 21:53:00
Durose David
Hi Paul, regarding Commynes (re trying after mail failure)
Yes indeed, Commynes did fall out in a big way with the Burgundian court, which since he was Flemish would have been home ground for him. He went on to be the confidential secretary for Louis XI and a member of the royal council until 1485.
Carol had pointed out that the perceived 'positive' view of Richard's actions at Picquigny contrasted with Commynes' view of Richard's accession and rule. She had suggested that his change of allegiance might account for this through the bias present at the French court. However, both events occurred well after his acquisition by Louis, in other words Commynes was working for Louis in 1475.
Personally, I think the impact of his move is overstated provided you take into account his dislike for his former employer.
If you look at where and when he actually wrote his 'memoir' then who he was working for at the time of the actual events seems less important.
He actually produced his work in the 1490s when he had just been released from prison and his punishment had been reduced to house arrest. He had been convicted of taking part in the Orleanist rebellion against the French Government. So the idea that he was producing views in favour of Burgundy in respect of events that happened while he was there (around 20 years earlier) and then writing somehow to undermine Richard when he had been dead for over five years seems a little weak.
He obviously does not get everything right.
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote:

Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:


Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 10:10:42
Hilary Jones
Have you got the reference in Commynes for the last para David? I would love to look at it. I don't dislike Commynes. Like Chapuys later he's a great court gossip. Whether the gossip's true or not of course is another thing, and as someone on here said (Mary I think) tales get embroidered so many times before they reach destinations. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Paul, regarding Commynes (re trying after mail failure)
Yes indeed, Commynes did fall out in a big way with the Burgundian court, which since he was Flemish would have been home ground for him. He went on to be the confidential secretary for Louis XI and a member of the royal council until 1485.
Carol had pointed out that the perceived 'positive' view of Richard's actions at Picquigny contrasted with Commynes' view of Richard's accession and rule. She had suggested that his change of allegiance might account for this through the bias present at the French court. However, both events occurred well after his acquisition by Louis, in other words Commynes was working for Louis in 1475.
Personally, I think the impact of his move is overstated provided you take into account his dislike for his former employer.
If you look at where and when he actually wrote his 'memoir' then who he was working for at the time of the actual events seems less important.
He actually produced his work in the 1490s when he had just been released from prison and his punishment had been reduced to house arrest. He had been convicted of taking part in the Orleanist rebellion against the French Government. So the idea that he was producing views in favour of Burgundy in respect of events that happened while he was there (around 20 years earlier) and then writing somehow to undermine Richard when he had been dead for over five years seems a little weak.
He obviously does not get everything right.
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol



Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 13:24:11
Durose David
Hilary,
The section about Stillington's son is certainly in the earliest edition of Commynes - that of Sauvage. In this it is on pages 172 / 173.
It is odd how some parts of his text simply get left out by later editors.
Les Mémoires de Messire Philippe de Commines... reveus et corrigés, pour la seconde fois, par Denis Sauvage... Les Mémoires de Messire Philippe de Commines... reveus et corrigés, pour la seconde fois, par Denis Sauvage...


RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 10:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Have you got the reference in Commynes for the last para David? I would love to look at it. I don't dislike Commynes. Like Chapuys later he's a great court gossip. Whether the gossip's true or not of course is another thing, and as someone on here said (Mary I think) tales get embroidered so many times before they reach destinations. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Paul, regarding Commynes (re trying after mail failure)
Yes indeed, Commynes did fall out in a big way with the Burgundian court, which since he was Flemish would have been home ground for him. He went on to be the confidential secretary for Louis XI and a member of the royal council until 1485.
Carol had pointed out that the perceived 'positive' view of Richard's actions at Picquigny contrasted with Commynes' view of Richard's accession and rule. She had suggested that his change of allegiance might account for this through the bias present at the French court. However, both events occurred well after his acquisition by Louis, in other words Commynes was working for Louis in 1475.
Personally, I think the impact of his move is overstated provided you take into account his dislike for his former employer.
If you look at where and when he actually wrote his 'memoir' then who he was working for at the time of the actual events seems less important.
He actually produced his work in the 1490s when he had just been released from prison and his punishment had been reduced to house arrest. He had been convicted of taking part in the Orleanist rebellion against the French Government. So the idea that he was producing views in favour of Burgundy in respect of events that happened while he was there (around 20 years earlier) and then writing somehow to undermine Richard when he had been dead for over five years seems a little weak.
He obviously does not get everything right.
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol



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

2017-07-06 17:09:06
Doug Stamate
I'd forgotten about that claim to the French throne. It could sort of look as if Edward was willing to forego that claim for cash, couldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I think it was those bribes too. And Richard's belief that it was the inherent right of English kings to be King of France. A title he used himself. Yes 'naughty' is a nice word :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 18:40:59
justcarol67
David, sorry not to quote your post, but you really seem to misunderstand what I said regarding Commynes. My point was that he actually saw Richard at Picquigny and therefore what he says about him in that context has more weight than what he speculated about his supposed role in the supposed murders of the "princes," which is based solely on (French) rumors. I also indicated that the French view of Richard as a warmonger may stem from his actions at Picquigny.

You seem to be reading in assumptions about my interpretation of events. I couldn't remember whether he was working for Burgundy or France at the time, but never said or implied that he had a Burgundian bias at the time he wrote or observed the events. In fact, he seems more or less objective in relating the events at Picquigny, but his later comments regarding Richard show no such objectivity and have no basis in his own experience. They do, IIRC, reflect his encounters with HT.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 18:58:30
ricard1an
Carol am I right in thinking that the French rumours started after Morton had fled to France?
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 19:22:56
Durose David
Hi Carol, OK I see what you mean. It should also be considered that he records a conversation with HT just before he departed from Normandy. He also mentions that Henry had around 500 followers. He will probably have been a member of the French council that authorised the support of Henry.
So my point would be that his source for the events in England is not going to be French rumours, but English exiles. It is not likely that Henry was the only one that he spoke to, just because his was the only conversation that he records. He does say 'some say...' when discussing the rumours about Anne's death.
It would be interesting to know how many people present at the meeting of the 'three estates' later wound up with Commynes in France.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 18:41, justcarol67@... []<> wrote:

David, sorry not to quote your post, but you really seem to misunderstand what I said regarding Commynes. My point was that he actua. lly saw Richard at Picquigny and therefore what he says about him in that context has more weight than what he speculated about his supposed role in the supposed murders of the "princes," which is based solely on (French) rumors. I also indicated that the French view of Richard as a warmonger may stem from his actions at Picquigny.

You seem to be reading in assumptions about my interpretation of events. I couldn't remember whether he was working for Burgundy or France at the time, but never said or implied that he had a Burgundian bias at the time he wrote or observed the events. In fact, he seems more or less objective in relating the events at Picquigny, but his later comments regarding Richard show no such objectivity and have no basis in his own experience. They do, IIRC, reflect his encounters with HT.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-06 19:25:51
Durose David
Mary,I don't think so - from memory Morton never went to France, I think it was Buckingham's custody in Wales to Flanders.
I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 18:58, maryfriend@... []<> wrote:

Carol am I right in thinking that the French rumours started after Morton had fled to France?


Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 09:06:52
Hilary Jones
Thanks a million David! H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2017, 13:24
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary,
The section about Stillington's son is certainly in the earliest edition of Commynes - that of Sauvage. In this it is on pages 172 / 173.
It is odd how some parts of his text simply get left out by later editors.
Les Mémoires de Messire Philippe de Commines... reveus et corrigés, pour la seconde fois, par Denis Sauvage... Les Mémoires de Messire Philippe de Commines... reveus et corrigés, pour la seconde fois, par Denis Sauvage...
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 10:10, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Have you got the reference in Commynes for the last para David? I would love to look at it. I don't dislike Commynes. Like Chapuys later he's a great court gossip. Whether the gossip's true or not of course is another thing, and as someone on here said (Mary I think) tales get embroidered so many times before they reach destinations. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 5 July 2017, 21:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hi Paul, regarding Commynes (re trying after mail failure)
Yes indeed, Commynes did fall out in a big way with the Burgundian court, which since he was Flemish would have been home ground for him. He went on to be the confidential secretary for Louis XI and a member of the royal council until 1485.
Carol had pointed out that the perceived 'positive' view of Richard's actions at Picquigny contrasted with Commynes' view of Richard's accession and rule. She had suggested that his change of allegiance might account for this through the bias present at the French court. However, both events occurred well after his acquisition by Louis, in other words Commynes was working for Louis in 1475.
Personally, I think the impact of his move is overstated provided you take into account his dislike for his former employer.
If you look at where and when he actually wrote his 'memoir' then who he was working for at the time of the actual events seems less important.
He actually produced his work in the 1490s when he had just been released from prison and his punishment had been reduced to house arrest. He had been convicted of taking part in the Orleanist rebellion against the French Government. So the idea that he was producing views in favour of Burgundy in respect of events that happened while he was there (around 20 years earlier) and then writing somehow to undermine Richard when he had been dead for over five years seems a little weak.
He obviously does not get everything right.
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.
RegardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read m carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 at 9:45, Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []<> wrote: Remember though David that Commynes changed sides and became very close to the "Universal Spider" Louis XI, so one has to read him carefully. Louis was a master at gaining and using power, and as a king there is much to admire about him. But cross him at your peril.Wonderful film about his last years made by the French a few years ago with Jacques Perrin looking so like the portraits it gave me chills. Louis XI - le Pouvoir Fracassé.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 2 juil. 2017 à 19:06, daviddurose2000@... [] <> a écrit :

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol





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

2017-07-07 09:09:47
Hilary Jones
Absolutely. English kings went on adding it to their title for generations - you come across it in wills. Richard, I'm sure would have thought it an enormous thing to concede for mere money. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 6 July 2017, 17:09
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I'd forgotten about that claim to the French throne. It could sort of look as if Edward was willing to forego that claim for cash, couldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Yes I think it was those bribes too. And Richard's belief that it was the inherent right of English kings to be King of France. A title he used himself. Yes 'naughty' is a nice word :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 11:50:47
romanenemo
Carol:
Although people sometimes consider that Titulus Regius reflects Richard's views, I think it's important to remember that he didn't write it. It was originally presented to him the Three Estates and later ratified by Richard's Parliament, but its purpose was, first, to persuade him to take the crown and, second, to present all the reasons why he was the best man for the job and why Edward's offspring weren't qualified. That included charges of witchcraft related to Edward's marriage and criticism of the previous reign. Yes, Richard implicitly endorsed the contents by accepting the crown, but what choice did he have?

Romane:He was the king, so I think he had the choice. Even if Stillington, not him, wrote it, and even if it was usual to criticize the previous monarch when the crown was seized by someone else than the previous king's son, the phrasing is rather violent, considering the fact that Edward was Richard's brother, and how loyal to him he had been all his life.Would have Richard allowed Stilligton to write such things if he disagreed ?And there is also that letter, putting in parallel the Earl of Desmond and George's fate, and implying they had been the victims of the same persons.I find difficult to doubt that Richard had been very disappointed in Edward along the years. I wonder if there was much of his youthful devotion left when his brother died. Not that Richard would have ceased supporting him in every way. But maybe then it was more because he felt duty bound than for any other reason.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 12:10:18
ricard1an
Apparently he was in Flanders though where is not known. If it was Bruges Margaret would not have countenanced that so it is thought that he may have been in Antwerp. However, Christopher Urswick visited him in Flanders and then went immediately to France, so he may well have passed on the message about the Princes supposedly being dead.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 13:52:14
romanenemo
David :
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.

Romane:
You're right, David, I missed something here. I read Hilary's post about Juliana Stilligton, but this was about a possible deal between Stilligton and Clarence, not Richard. Hilary alluded to Stilligton's son, but she didn't elaborate and I thought that maybe Commynes had made a confusion and that the deal had been about the daughter, not the son.
So what about that son ? I didn't know about that passage of Commynes. There are some words missing in your post, but I gather that Stilligton is supposed to have sold the secret (or the lie) of the precontract in exchange for his son's future marriage with one of Edward IV's daughters ? Is it plausible, considering that the girls, even declared bastards, were the former king's daughters ? A bishop's bastard is really below their station. It would have made the deal rather conspicuous, I think. Maybe, as someone suggested, Commynes only tried to find an explanation for Stilligton 's story of the pre contract ? Even in this time, the story seemed far too timely to be true.And why was that son of Stilligton's arrested on the Chanel ? Why did he end up dying in the Petit Chatelet ?
Romane

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 14:48:11
ricard1an
Just did some further googling and come across this albeit in Wikipedia. Christopher Urswick was the priest and confessor to Margaret Beaufort and thought to have acted as go between in the plotting to place her son on the throne. Maybe MB's half brother's attempt to "rescue" the Princes was successful and she knew that they were dead.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 15:15:29
Hilary Jones
Yes Romane, I was alluding to the 'deal' Stillington supposedly proposed to Richard between his son and one of Edward's daughters. I thought we'd discarded the bit about the shipwrecked son which is why I asked David for the reference. Have all these things got muddled through court gossip - I mean Commynes? I've certainly read the Richard deal one in his work. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 13:52
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

David :
The discussion from Hilary's initial post about obtaining an advantageous marriage for one of Stillington's children seems to have gone full circle with Romane's statement that Stillington gained nothing from revealing the precontract.
She obviously had not heard Commynes' account of Stillington's son allegedly arrested onboard ship in the Channel with a story that the son had been promised land and marriage to one of Edward IV for producing the precontract story. According to his account, the reason no benefit was apparent in England was that the son was brought before the parliament in France and accidentally mistreated to death in the Petit Chatelet. Perhaps Romane had never been aware of this account.

Romane:
You're right, David, I missed something here. I read Hilary's post about Juliana Stilligton, but this was about a possible deal between Stilligton and Clarence, not Richard. Hilary alluded to Stilligton's son, but she didn't elaborate and I thought that maybe Commynes had made a confusion and that the deal had been about the daughter, not the son.
So what about that son ? I didn't know about that passage of Commynes. There are some words missing in your post, but I gather that Stilligton is supposed to have sold the secret (or the lie) of the precontract in exchange for his son's future marriage with one of Edward IV's daughters ? Is it plausible, considering that the girls, even declared bastards, were the former king's daughters ? A bishop's bastard is really below their station. It would have made the deal rather conspicuous, I think. Maybe, as someone suggested, Commynes only tried to find an explanation for Stilligton 's story of the pre contract ? Even in this time, the story seemed far too timely to be true.And why was that son of Stilligton's arrested on the Chanel ? Why did he end up dying in the Petit Chatelet ?
Romane


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 15:16:47
Hilary Jones
Yes Urswick was attained for being the messenger in 1483. Do you mean her nephew? H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 14:48
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Just did some further googling and come across this albeit in Wikipedia. Christopher Urswick was the priest and confessor to Margaret Beaufort and thought to have acted as go between in the plotting to place her son on the throne. Maybe MB's half brother's attempt to "rescue" the Princes was successful and she knew that they were dead.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 16:55:10
ricard1an
MB's nephew? Not sure about that.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 18:36:45
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"Carol am I right in thinking that the French rumours started after Morton had fled to France?"

Carol responds:

I seem to remember that being the case but am not sure of the source (unless you count Josephine Tey).

Csrol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 20:03:41
b.eileen25
According to Morton's biographer R L Woodhouse The Life of JohnMorton, Archbishop of Canterbury, after he escaped from Brecknock he found freinds and money in the Fenns a mere 40 miles from MBs estate of Colyweston.. "He then sailed into Flanders where he remained doing good service to the Earl of Richmond until the scHeme at Brecknock had been realised and the earl had become king of England". I haven't had time yet to recheck Woodhouse's sources.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 20:11:24
Durose David
Mary,I think Urswick's link to Morton was considerably later - and again around the time of Richard's plot with the treasurer of Brittany.
According to Virgil, Margaret Beaufort considered sending him to Brittany earlier but settled on other messengers. But that was AFTER she had heard that the Princes were dead.
Below is a translation of Polydore Vergil
25 Eng. 25 Eng.



RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-07 20:38:00
romanenemo
Carol:I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities.
Romane:IMO, being a man of moral rectitude doesn't mean being a prig. There is no sign that Richard was self-righteous, and looked down as those with a less exemplary conduct than himself. One can assume that especially considering the way he seems to have kept some brotherly feelings for George in spite of his behavior, so far from his own standards. And by acknowledging his bastards, he acknowledged what was considered a mistake, even a sin, by the church. Self-righteous persons never admit they are in the wrong.His staunch loyalty to Edward and his refusal of any bribe and of the treaty of Piquigny itself, even his acknowledgment of his bastard are choices in accordance with each other and show that Richard lived by high principles. But nobody is perfect and there is always another side of the coin : there is little doubt that Richard was often unyielding, as far as his own conduct was at stake. For example, if not taking any bribe from Louis was indeed the honorable thing to do, there was no need to be so conspicuously absent at Piquigny. The matter was settled, and it indeed could make Richard appear as dangerously attached to the claim on France of the english kings. His last charge at Bosworth, as well, shows more admiration for his chivalric models than sense of self-preservation. But then, it's maybe as much because of that kind of mistake as because of all his sensible decisions that he seems to be such an attaching figure.
There was no need to so blatantly refuse the treaty of Piquigny, as it was a settled matter.


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

I was actually joking about Richard being 'naughty' Romane and Carol. Unfortunately, though, it did come back to bite him in 1483. I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 2 July 2017, 18:41
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Carol, Regarding Commynes and Picquigny, his must be one of the best documented lives from the period. I think if you check, you will find that in 1475 he had already fallen out with the Burgundian court and had been working for Louis for some time.
Regards David
On 1 Jul 2017 10:58 p.m., "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:

Romane wrote:

"As for George being loyal in 1475, and for Richard's 'naughty' behavior, that episode is often considered as another proof of Richard's moral rectitude, in opposition to George and the other counselors, all bribed by Louis XI. What are the documentary evidence for that ? For Hasting's huge pension, for example ?"

Carol responds:

The authority is Commynes, who can be considered reliable in this instance (as opposed to his remarks on Richard as king) because he was actually present, working under Charles le Temeraire before he switched sides and started working for Louis XI.

I agree with you that Richard's behavior shows moral rectitude--trying to keep the promise Edward had made to the English people and not falling into the trap of taking bribes from the French--as Edward himself did, to his regret near the end of his life when Louis backed out of the deal for EoY to marry the dauphin. Unfortunately for Richard, the French (and perhaps the Francophile Commynes) seem to have regarded him as dangerous from that point forward.

Carol




Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 01:02:14
justcarol67
David wrote:

"It would be interesting to know how many people present at the meeting of the 'three estates' later wound up with Commynes in France."

Carol responds:

If you mean how many of the men who petitioned Richard to become king ended up in France as companions of HT and encountered Commynes in that connection, I would say probably none--at least no members of the first two Estates (the nobility and clergy) who would have been in London in June 1483 (for what would have been Edward V's first Parliament) and again in January 1484 (when one of the bills was the attainder of traitors participating in Buckingham's Rebellion). Certainly, Morton (a prisoner at the time) wasn't among the clergy who petitioned Richard, nor would the Earl of Oxford (also a prisoner at the time) have been among the nobles (even if he had been free).

Somewhere (and as usual, I can't find what I'm looking for), there's a petition signed by members of the clergy praising Richard for the good moral example he set and asking him to use his influence with the people. I thought it was in Annette Carson's "The Maligned King," but I don't see it there. In any case, the signers of that letter or petition are probably the same as those clergymen who petitioned him to be king in the first place.

As for the nobility, we have Norfolk, Suffolk (Richard's brother-in-law), Lincoln (Richard's nephew), Buckingham, Viscount Lovell, probably Lord Stanley, and any other lords known to have attended the coronation.

The commons are harder to track, but Marie (who hasn't posted for a while--hope she's okay) or Hilary may be able to help us with the MPs for Richard's Parliament. Sir William Stanley may well have been one, but he didn't join HT in France and I don't know whether he ever spoke with Commynes. (He may have been at Picquigny, but would have been a nobody to the French court.)

BTW. David, do you know whether Mancini and Commynes had any contact with each other? Could Mancini (who left England before the so-called princes disappeared) have been Commynes's source, or one of them?

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 04:06:17
justcarol67

Romane wrote:

"He was the king, so I think he had the choice. Even if Stillington, not him, wrote it, and even if it was usual to criticize the previous monarch when the crown was seized by someone else than the previous king's son, the phrasing is rather violent, considering the fact that Edward was Richard's brother, and how loyal to him he had been all his life.Would have Richard allowed Stilligton to write such things if he disagreed."

Carol responds:

He wasn't the king. He was the Lord Protector, who received the petition to become king. I doubt that he oversaw the petition--Yes, ask me on those grounds but not on those. Stillington was putting in every argument for Richard's legitimacy (and E V's illegitimacy) that his medieval legal mind could conceive of. Titulus Regius later quoted the petition word for word. True, Richard agreed to the passage of the bill, but to quibble over the wording at that point would undermine the legitimacy of his claim. On the other hand, he did disapprove of some of Edward IV's actions, not only Picquigny but benevolences, and he intended to right the wrongs of the previous reign. I just don't think he would have put it in those terms. I also don't think he would have put in the part about his own undoubted legitimacy, which obliquely hints that Edward wasn't their father's son. Stillington is bringing in an old argument from the days of Warwick and George--anything he thinks may help Richard's cause among the Three Estates, most of them with at least some background in English law of the time.

Romane wrote:

"And there is also that letter, putting in parallel the Earl of Desmond and George's fate, and implying they had been the victims of the same persons.

"I find difficult to doubt that Richard had been very disappointed in Edward along the years. I wonder if there was much of his youthful devotion left when his brother died. Not that Richard would have ceased supporting him in every way. But maybe then it was more because he felt duty bound than for any other reason."

Carol responds:

Now here I agree with you, though it was the Woodvilles he was condemning in the instructions to the Earl of Desmond. (E IV was evidently displeased with the older Desmond's execution, but he could do nothing after the fact.)

As I said earlier, Richard clearly disagreed with Edward on certain points (probably including the execution of their brother), and his early legislation, not to mention his words on accepting the crown, ordering all judges and legal officers to "justly and duly minister his law without delay and favour," indicate a desire to rule more justly and fairly than his brother had done). Two months later in a proclamation to Kent he repeated the same idea, talking about punishing all extortion and oppression and his desire for all his true subjects to live in peace without fear of being robbed or injured by anyone, lord or commoner--equal justice for all. (See "Maligned King," p. 226, for the actual passages and their sources.)

I think these words show that Richard was, indeed, disillusioned with Edward and wanted to go back to the ideals that Edward had demonstrated early in his reign. But he also believed in the legitimacy of the House of York. "Loyalty *binds* me" suggests something more than the love he felt for his brother the king or even the duty he must have felt at Stony Stratford to support and protect that scion of Woodvilles but also of York, Edward V. (I can scarcely imagine his mixed feelings of relief, hope, and fear when he learned that E V was illegitimate and he was no longer *bound* by duty or loyalty to support and serve him but could, if fate allowed it, put his own idealized view of the kingship into practice.)

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 04:27:39
justcarol67


Romane quoted me as saying:

"I hate the words 'moral rectitude' when applied to Richard; it makes him sound such a prig, which I doubt he was given his famous Christmas festivities."

Romane then commented:

"IMO, being a man of moral rectitude doesn't mean being a prig. There is no sign that Richard was self-righteous, and looked down as those with a less exemplary conduct than himself."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. The words you attributed to me were someone else's response to my comment on Richard's moral rectitude.

I think the person was saying that Richard's enjoyment of parties showed that he wasn't a prig, which is certainly true. But a person can enjoy Christmas festivities and still believe in being faithful to his wife (Richard's words and actions show that he opposed adultery, a different matter to the medieval mind than the minor sin of fornication) and otherwise morally upright. The medieval Catholics (with the exception of a few priggish and misogynistic priests) could be pious without stripping away the joys of life, unlike the later Puritans, who didn't want beautiful music or stained glass windows to distract worshipers from the fear (as opposed to love) of God.

I don't equate moral rectitude with Puritanism, and I see nothing wrong with associating moral rectitude with Richard. Though a flawed human being like everyone else, he tried to do the right thing, both in his private life and in his legislation.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 09:12:22
Hilary Jones
Sorry, I must have muddled what you said, I thought you meant Buckingham? H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 7 July 2017, 16:55
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

MB's nephew? Not sure about that.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 09:20:03
Hilary Jones
Off the top of my head I would add Catesby to that bunch. He was certainly Speaker at the 1484 Parliament. I'm pretty sure the clergy included Bourhier (Archbishop), Russell, and I think at this point Rotherham? I remember the list too Carol. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017, 1:02
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


David wrote:

"It would be interesting to know how many people present at the meeting of the 'three estates' later wound up with Commynes in France."

Carol responds:

If you mean how many of the men who petitioned Richard to become king ended up in France as companions of HT and encountered Commynes in that connection, I would say probably none--at least no members of the first two Estates (the nobility and clergy) who would have been in London in June 1483 (for what would have been Edward V's first Parliament) and again in January 1484 (when one of the bills was the attainder of traitors participating in Buckingham's Rebellion). Certainly, Morton (a prisoner at the time) wasn't among the clergy who petitioned Richard, nor would the Earl of Oxford (also a prisoner at the time) have been among the nobles (even if he had been free).

Somewhere (and as usual, I can't find what I'm looking for), there's a petition signed by members of the clergy praising Richard for the good moral example he set and asking him to use his influence with the people. I thought it was in Annette Carson's "The Maligned King," but I don't see it there. In any case, the signers of that letter or petition are probably the same as those clergymen who petitioned him to be king in the first place.

As for the nobility, we have Norfolk, Suffolk (Richard's brother-in-law), Lincoln (Richard's nephew), Buckingham, Viscount Lovell, probably Lord Stanley, and any other lords known to have attended the coronation.

The commons are harder to track, but Marie (who hasn't posted for a while--hope she's okay) or Hilary may be able to help us with the MPs for Richard's Parliament. Sir William Stanley may well have been one, but he didn't join HT in France and I don't know whether he ever spoke with Commynes. (He may have been at Picquigny, but would have been a nobody to the French court.)

BTW. David, do you know whether Mancini and Commynes had any contact with each other? Could Mancini (who left England before the so-called princes disappeared) have been Commynes's source, or one of them?

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 09:25:07
Hilary Jones
I would add to your first point Carol that Stillington's family and affinity in the North stood to gain considerably from Richard being King. They'd been his loyal supporters as Duke and they'd know the Duke rewarded loyalty. This is why the Stillington thing can work against us. It's easy for those who think Richard was Shakespeare's Richard to believe Stillington and his story was a plant to put Richard on the throne. I for one don't for loads of reasons, but it's an argument that's been put forward since his death. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017, 4:06
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


Romane wrote:

"He was the king, so I think he had the choice. Even if Stillington, not him, wrote it, and even if it was usual to criticize the previous monarch when the crown was seized by someone else than the previous king's son, the phrasing is rather violent, considering the fact that Edward was Richard's brother, and how loyal to him he had been all his life.Would have Richard allowed Stilligton to write such things if he disagreed."

Carol responds:

He wasn't the king. He was the Lord Protector, who received the petition to become king. I doubt that he oversaw the petition--Yes, ask me on those grounds but not on those. Stillington was putting in every argument for Richard's legitimacy (and E V's illegitimacy) that his medieval legal mind could conceive of. Titulus Regius later quoted the petition word for word. True, Richard agreed to the passage of the bill, but to quibble over the wording at that point would undermine the legitimacy of his claim. On the other hand, he did disapprove of some of Edward IV's actions, not only Picquigny but benevolences, and he intended to right the wrongs of the previous reign. I just don't think he would have put it in those terms. I also don't think he would have put in the part about his own undoubted legitimacy, which obliquely hints that Edward wasn't their father's son. Stillington is bringing in an old argument from the days of Warwick and George--anything he thinks may help Richard's cause among the Three Estates, most of them with at least some background in English law of the time.

Romane wrote:

"And there is also that letter, putting in parallel the Earl of Desmond and George's fate, and implying they had been the victims of the same persons.

"I find difficult to doubt that Richard had been very disappointed in Edward along the years. I wonder if there was much of his youthful devotion left when his brother died. Not that Richard would have ceased supporting him in every way. But maybe then it was more because he felt duty bound than for any other reason."

Carol responds:

Now here I agree with you, though it was the Woodvilles he was condemning in the instructions to the Earl of Desmond. (E IV was evidently displeased with the older Desmond's execution, but he could do nothing after the fact.)

As I said earlier, Richard clearly disagreed with Edward on certain points (probably including the execution of their brother), and his early legislation, not to mention his words on accepting the crown, ordering all judges and legal officers to "justly and duly minister his law without delay and favour," indicate a desire to rule more justly and fairly than his brother had done). Two months later in a proclamation to Kent he repeated the same idea, talking about punishing all extortion and oppression and his desire for all his true subjects to live in peace without fear of being robbed or injured by anyone, lord or commoner--equal justice for all. (See "Maligned King," p. 226, for the actual passages and their sources.)

I think these words show that Richard was, indeed, disillusioned with Edward and wanted to go back to the ideals that Edward had demonstrated early in his reign. But he also believed in the legitimacy of the House of York. "Loyalty *binds* me" suggests something more than the love he felt for his brother the king or even the duty he must have felt at Stony Stratford to support and protect that scion of Woodvilles but also of York, Edward V. (I can scarcely imagine his mixed feelings of relief, hope, and fear when he learned that E V was illegitimate and he was no longer *bound* by duty or loyalty to support and serve him but could, if fate allowed it, put his own idealized view of the kingship into practice.)


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 11:01:31
ricard1an
No Christopher Urswick, he was her priest and confessor.
Mary

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-08 16:58:13
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Off the top of my head I would add Catesby to that bunch. He was certainly Speaker at the 1484 Parliament. I'm pretty sure the clergy included Bourhier (Archbishop), Russell, and I think at this point Rotherham? I remember the list too Carol."


Carol responds:

Bourchier and Russell definitely. I think Rotherham was still in custody until a few weeks after the petition was presented, but he would have been in the Parliament that approved Titulus Regius in January 1484. Catesby, of course, was elected Speaker, but I don't know whether he was one of the "Commons" who presented the original petition. I suspect that he was. He was almost certainly present when it was presented.

Oddly, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, EW's brother-in-law from her first marriage, was also present to support Richard at the time of the Three Estates petition. I don't know what became of him. I assume he was a member of Richard's Parliament, but I don't think he was at Bosworth.

We can also add Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, who fought for Richard at Bosworth and would have been summoned for E V's never-held Parliament.

Anyway, my list of petitioners to Richard to become king who later changed their minds and supported HT (and thus were in France to speak with Commynes) is still zero. How about yours?

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 09:45:19
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol, the list isn't in Carson - she just says a meeting of all the Lords Temporal and Spiritual. There is a list of all Bishops of the time in Baldwin's Richard III and it includes Rotherham as a supporter at this point. It's in a chapter called Cultivating the Bishops. I wouldn't recommend it though. He lists 17 of them but says that because Courtenay and Morton were not supporters and Bourchier had been pressured then the majority of bishops were against Richard. He must have had a problem with his maths. He gets their ages wrong too. Says Stillington was 76 when he was 52!
Re your other point, the only supporter I can think of who 'turned' was Thomas Fitzalan, 17 Earl of Arundel. He was married to a Woodville and went on to become godfather to Prince Arthur. Can't think of any more. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017, 17:01
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Off the top of my head I would add Catesby to that bunch. He was certainly Speaker at the 1484 Parliament. I'm pretty sure the clergy included Bourhier (Archbishop), Russell, and I think at this point Rotherham? I remember the list too Carol."


Carol responds:

Bourchier and Russell definitely. I think Rotherham was still in custody until a few weeks after the petition was presented, but he would have been in the Parliament that approved Titulus Regius in January 1484. Catesby, of course, was elected Speaker, but I don't know whether he was one of the "Commons" who presented the original petition. I suspect that he was. He was almost certainly present when it was presented.

Oddly, Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle, EW's brother-in-law from her first marriage, was also present to support Richard at the time of the Three Estates petition. I don't know what became of him. I assume he was a member of Richard's Parliament, but I don't think he was at Bosworth.

We can also add Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmoreland, who fought for Richard at Bosworth and would have been summoned for E V's never-held Parliament.

Anyway, my list of petitioners to Richard to become king who later changed their minds and supported HT (and thus were in France to speak with Commynes) is still zero. How about yours?

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 11:25:53
romanenemo
Carol:I also don't think he would have put in the part about his own undoubted legitimacy, which obliquely hints that Edward wasn't their father's son. Stillington is bringing in an old argument from the days of Warwick and George--anything he thinks may help Richard's cause among the Three Estates, most of them with at least some background in English law of the time.

Romane:If I remember correctly, in the Titulus Regius there is only something about Richard being the only son of York who was born in England, which was something considered as important in these times of xenophobic prejudices. The idea was that Richard was all the more a true son of England for being born on its soil. It's true as well that apparently being born on foreign land somehow cast a suspicion of illegitimacy. So of course, it was possible to consider that passage as a hint at the piece of gossip about 'Blaybourne', but in a completely remote and oblique way indeed. Richard would never have allowed a direct allusion to Edward's supposed illegitimacy, it was such a slander on his mother. And anyway, I've read somewhere that being born on English soil is an argument that has been used by other rulers than Richard.
So on the contrary, Stilligton's caution on that point seems to me a proof that he didn't write anything Richard would have objected to.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 17:51:10
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol, the list isn't in Carson - she just says a meeting of all the Lords Temporal and Spiritual. There is a list of all Bishops of the time in Baldwin's Richard III and it includes Rotherham as a supporter at this point. It's in a chapter called Cultivating the Bishops. I wouldn't recommend it though. He lists 17 of them but says that because Courtenay and Morton were not supporters and Bourchier had been pressured then the majority of bishops were against Richard. He must have had a problem with his maths. He gets their ages wrong too. Says Stillington was 76 when he was 52!


"Re your other point, the only supporter I can think of who 'turned' was Thomas Fitzalan, 17 Earl of Arundel. He was married to a Woodville and went on to become godfather to Prince Arthur. Can't think of any more."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. But the document I'm looking for isn't a list. It's something like a petition (not *the* petition) asking Richard to help them in some way and praising his moral example. I know I didn't make it up, and I'm not talking about the similar praise in Titulus Regius or the words of Langton, Archibald Whitelaw, or the turncoats Rous and Carmeliano.

If I recall correctly (and I'm beginning to wonder about that!), it was signed by Russell, Bourchier, and even Rotherham. If it's not in "Maligned King" (and I could have sworn it was), where could I have seen it? It's not in Kendall, but it has to be in a book favorable to Richard.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 18:06:28
Hilary Jones
I'll keep looking. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Sunday, July 9, 2017, 5:51 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"Hi Carol, the list isn't in Carson - she just says a meeting of all the Lords Temporal and Spiritual. There is a list of all Bishops of the time in Baldwin's Richard III and it includes Rotherham as a supporter at this point. It's in a chapter called Cultivating the Bishops. I wouldn't recommend it though. He lists 17 of them but says that because Courtenay and Morton were not supporters and Bourchier had been pressured then the majority of bishops were against Richard. He must have had a problem with his maths. He gets their ages wrong too. Says Stillington was 76 when he was 52!


"Re your other point, the only supporter I can think of who 'turned' was Thomas Fitzalan, 17 Earl of Arundel. He was married to a Woodville and went on to become godfather to Prince Arthur. Can't think of any more."

Carol responds:

Thanks, Hilary. But the document I'm looking for isn't a list. It's something like a petition (not *the* petition) asking Richard to help them in some way and praising his moral example. I know I didn't make it up, and I'm not talking about the similar praise in Titulus Regius or the words of Langton, Archibald Whitelaw, or the turncoats Rous and Carmeliano.

If I recall correctly (and I'm beginning to wonder about that!), it was signed by Russell, Bourchier, and even Rotherham. If it's not in "Maligned King" (and I could have sworn it was), where could I have seen it? It's not in Kendall, but it has to be in a book favorable to Richard.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 19:47:46
romanenemo
Hilary:I would add to your first point Carol that Stillington's family and affinity in the North stood to gain considerably from Richard being King. They'd been his loyal supporters as Duke and they'd know the Duke rewarded loyalty. This is why the Stillington thing can work against us. It's easy for those who think Richard was Shakespeare's Richard to believe Stillington and his story was a plant to put Richard on the throne. I for one don't for loads of reasons, but it's an argument that's been put forward since his death. H

Romane: There are indeed some reasons to think that the pre contract actually existed (Stilligton's imprisonment under Edward IV, Henry VII's relentlessness in destroying all the copies of the TR instead of legally refuting it...)But indeed, even without thinking that Shakespeare's Richard is the real one, the fact that Stilligton had much to gain from Richard becoming king can give pause. For it seems very unlikely that Stilligton would have invented the story without Richard being aware of it.
Another argument I've read in favor of the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that Eleanor Butler was so high born that it's unlikely that her name would have been used if the story was not true. So what about Eleanor's family ? Assuming that she did't say anything because she was disgusted with Edward's behavior and preferred living in a nunnery than being his unwanted wife, Eleanor had brothers and sisters still alive in 1483. If they didn't know anything about the pre contract, wouldn't they have protested against the use of their sister's name ? For example, the dowager Duchess of Norfolk ? Or Humphrey Talbot, who was later Marshal of Calais ? Apparently their reaction when the pre contract story became public knowledge is not known at all ?

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 21:38:27
b.eileen25
JAH points out that two of the duchess of Norfolks servants were executed (The Private Life of Edward IV). This may have served as a warning. It's easy to say today why didn't her family speak out but it would have been very dangerous, life threatening even to do so. As it was the widowed Duchess lost much when Edward arranged the marriage of her young daughter Anne Mowbray to his son as the sudden death her husband.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 21:40:40
b.eileen25
Re the heading on this thread..Closer than we thought..I always believed that George and Stillington were close. George once stayed at the Bishops Palace at Wells.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 22:00:39
romanenemo
Yes, but my question was about the year 1483. When Stilligton's story became public knowledge, why didn't anyone of Eleanor's family say anything ? It could be because it was true and they knew it. Else, wouldn't they have protested about their sister's name being used in such a way ? Richard was not king yet, and his position was not that strong that he could intimidate them all the way Edward might have in his time.

---In , <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote :

JAH points out that two of the duchess of Norfolks servants were executed (The Private Life of Edward IV). This may have served as a warning. It's easy to say today why didn't her family speak out but it would have been very dangerous, life threatening even to do so. As it was the widowed Duchess lost much when Edward arranged the marriage of her young daughter Anne Mowbray to his son as the sudden death her husband.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 22:49:02
b.eileen25
Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-09 22:53:29
b.eileen25
If you make one secret marriage then it follows that any other marriages have to be secret too.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 01:07:37
justcarol67

romane wrote:

"Yes, but my question was about the year 1483. When Stilligton's story became public knowledge, why didn't anyone of Eleanor's family say anything ? It could be because it was true and they knew it. Else, wouldn't they have protested about their sister's name being used in such a way ? Richard was not king yet, and his position was not that strong that he could intimidate them all the way Edward might have in his time."
Carol responds:

Sir Gilbert Talbot (Eleanor's nephew) supported HT at Bosworth, which would suggest that he wasn't overly happy with the House of York in general (a probably long-standing grudge against Edward for his mistreatment of Eleanor complicated by the publication of her humiliation in TR). Frankly, though of course I'm on Richard's side and understand why it had to be done, I can hardly blame him for his choice.

If I'm not mistaken, his father-in-law, Ralph Lord Greystoke, fought for Richard but was later pardoned by HT.

Carol

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 01:35:57
justcarol67


Carol earlier:

"Sir Gilbert Talbot (Eleanor's nephew) supported HT at Bosworth, which would suggest that he wasn't overly happy with the House of York in general (a probably long-standing grudge against Edward for his mistreatment of Eleanor complicated by the publication of her humiliation in TR). Frankly, though of course I'm on Richard's side and understand why it had to be done, I can hardly blame him for his choice."

Carol again:

Sorry about the vague pronouns. I meant that I can hardly blame Sir Gilbert for choosing HT over Richard given the circumstances.

There was also a Sir Humphrey Talbot, brother of Eleanor and Elizabeth, who would have been in his fifties but doesn't seem to have fought on either side. (Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.) He died in 1492.

The young Earl of Shrewsbury, aged about seventeen, also apparently stayed away from Bosworth. He was Gilbert's nephew, I think, so that would make him Eleanor's great-nephew. She died around the time he was born.

Carol


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 09:24:50
romanenemo
We can't be sure that neither of the living members of the Talbot family confirmed Stilligton's story. As Eileen said, any testimony from one of them backing it up would have been destroyed by HT. Besides, it's very possible that none of them knew much about the precontract. But at least, it seems that they didn't consider it an outrageous lie.For if they had protested and said that the story was not true, we would probably know about it . Especially if a member of the family was on HT's side at Bosworth.So it seems to me that all in all, the fact that it's Eleanor Butler, a member of such an important family, who is supposed to have been Edward's victim rather proves that the pre contract actually existed.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 10:17:15
Hilary Jones
I do agree Romane and the question you ask in your second paragraph re their reaction is one I've often asked - both in 1483 and when HT took the throne. I could see that as Lancastrians HT might have bought them off to be silent but I'm not so sure Elizabeth would be so easy to shut up if she believed her sister wronged. It does remain a puzzle. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 19:48
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary:I would add to your first point Carol that Stillington's family and affinity in the North stood to gain considerably from Richard being King. They'd been his loyal supporters as Duke and they'd know the Duke rewarded loyalty. This is why the Stillington thing can work against us. It's easy for those who think Richard was Shakespeare's Richard to believe Stillington and his story was a plant to put Richard on the throne. I for one don't for loads of reasons, but it's an argument that's been put forward since his death. H

Romane: There are indeed some reasons to think that the pre contract actually existed (Stilligton's imprisonment under Edward IV, Henry VII's relentlessness in destroying all the copies of the TR instead of legally refuting it...)But indeed, even without thinking that Shakespeare's Richard is the real one, the fact that Stilligton had much to gain from Richard becoming king can give pause. For it seems very unlikely that Stilligton would have invented the story without Richard being aware of it.
Another argument I've read in favor of the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that Eleanor Butler was so high born that it's unlikely that her name would have been used if the story was not true. So what about Eleanor's family ? Assuming that she did't say anything because she was disgusted with Edward's behavior and preferred living in a nunnery than being his unwanted wife, Eleanor had brothers and sisters still alive in 1483. If they didn't know anything about the pre contract, wouldn't they have protested against the use of their sister's name ? For example, the dowager Duchess of Norfolk ? Or Humphrey Talbot, who was later Marshal of Calais ? Apparently their reaction when the pre contract story became public knowledge is not known at all ?


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 10:23:29
Hilary Jones
I've seen many arguments that they weren't which is why I put the heading but they were not only geographically close but they moved in the same cicles - the Twynyhos, Newtons, Chokkes, etc appear together on deeds. I do wonder where the information came from that Stillington never visited his diocese? Commynes again? In the Wells records it says on a couple of occasions that he's in a far part of his diocese - it doesn't say he's out of it. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 21:40
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Re the heading on this thread..Closer than we thought..I always believed that George and Stillington were close. George once stayed at the Bishops Palace at Wells.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 10:32:46
Hilary Jones
I think that a very good point! It would be very interesting to see what went through the shredder.
One would have thought someone in the Talbots would have heard something and repeated or embellished it through the years, even if they kept it 'in the family'. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 22:53
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

If you make one secret marriage then it follows that any other marriages have to be secret too.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 10:45:06
Hilary Jones
I think you could say the Talbots were ever Lancastrians - Eleanor's father was a great servant of Henry VI. In fact if you've been following the conversation about Ankarette Twynyho you'd know that the gentry in Salop had a will of their own and were often very difficult to control. The Talbots of course sat at the top of the heap and were embroiled in their own feud over the Berkeley inheritance. So it was about which king offered you most.Yes Ralph and Herbert Greystoke fought for Richard - Ralph was well over 70 at the time - and he lived on for another two years!! However, two of his sons in law, Ralph Bigod and Sir Ralph Eure had died at Towton for Lancaster which shows what a mixed bag things can be. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 1:07
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?


romane wrote:

"Yes, but my question was about the year 1483. When Stilligton's story became public knowledge, why didn't anyone of Eleanor's family say anything ? It could be because it was true and they knew it. Else, wouldn't they have protested about their sister's name being used in such a way ? Richard was not king yet, and his position was not that strong that he could intimidate them all the way Edward might have in his time."
Carol responds:

Sir Gilbert Talbot (Eleanor's nephew) supported HT at Bosworth, which would suggest that he wasn't overly happy with the House of York in general (a probably long-standing grudge against Edward for his mistreatment of Eleanor complicated by the publication of her humiliation in TR). Frankly, though of course I'm on Richard's side and understand why it had to be done, I can hardly blame him for his choice.

If I'm not mistaken, his father-in-law, Ralph Lord Greystoke, fought for Richard but was later pardoned by HT.

Carol


Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 10:59:17
Hilary Jones
Hi Carol, yes Humphrey didn't fight. He would have been about 60 so perhaps he wasn't fit and died, I think, on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in Oct 1493 - he's buried there?George Talbot, who would have been 17 in 1485 is actually on some Bosworth lists as fighting for Richard but I have to confirm that. He received the Scottish Ambassadors in 1484 so he was in favour with Richard. He certainly fought at Stoke for HT and did well under him.Hope this helps. H
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 1:37
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



Carol earlier:

"Sir Gilbert Talbot (Eleanor's nephew) supported HT at Bosworth, which would suggest that he wasn't overly happy with the House of York in general (a probably long-standing grudge against Edward for his mistreatment of Eleanor complicated by the publication of her humiliation in TR). Frankly, though of course I'm on Richard's side and understand why it had to be done, I can hardly blame him for his choice."

Carol again:

Sorry about the vague pronouns. I meant that I can hardly blame Sir Gilbert for choosing HT over Richard given the circumstances.

There was also a Sir Humphrey Talbot, brother of Eleanor and Elizabeth, who would have been in his fifties but doesn't seem to have fought on either side. (Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.) He died in 1492.

The young Earl of Shrewsbury, aged about seventeen, also apparently stayed away from Bosworth. He was Gilbert's nephew, I think, so that would make him Eleanor's great-nephew. She died around the time he was born.

Carol




Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 11:04:49
Hilary Jones
I think this is where most of us got to some time ago? It would have been so much easier to have chosen a London citizen's wife then deceased, paid a few people off, and no-one could contradict it. To chose such a high-born woman from a prominent family would have been a considerable risk. H

From: romanenemo <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 9:24
Subject: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

We can't be sure that neither of the living members of the Talbot family confirmed Stilligton's story. As Eileen said, any testimony from one of them backing it up would have been destroyed by HT. Besides, it's very possible that none of them knew much about the precontract. But at least, it seems that they didn't consider it an outrageous lie.For if they had protested and said that the story was not true, we would probably know about it . Especially if a member of the family was on HT's side at Bosworth.So it seems to me that all in all, the fact that it's Eleanor Butler, a member of such an important family, who is supposed to have been Edward's victim rather proves that the pre contract actually existed.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-10 13:05:26
Durose David
Hilary,Re Bath and WellsI think from memory that the idea that Stillington rarely visited comes from a history of the diocese. I recall that he was there around the time of the attempt to abduct Henry from Brittany 1476. His visit was described as his only one.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 at 10:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

I've seen many arguments that they weren't which is why I put the heading but they were not only geographically close moved in the same cicles - the Twynyhos, Newtons, Chokkes, etc appear together on deeds. I do wonder where the information came from that Stillington never visited his diocese? Commynes again? In the Wells records it says on a couple of occasions that he's in a far part of his diocese - it doesn't say he's out of it. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 21:40
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Re the heading on this thread..Closer than we thought..I always believed that George and Stillington were close. George once stayed at the Bishops Palace at Wells.

Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

2017-07-11 09:38:15
Hilary Jones
Yes, I'd guess it comes from around then. There's nothing in his registers which complains of him being consistently absent, though of course he continued his association with St Martin's in London so he had an excuse. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 13:15
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary,Re Bath and WellsI think from memory that the idea that Stillington rarely visited comes from a history of the diocese. I recall that he was there around the time of the attempt to abduct Henry from Brittany 1476. His visit was described as his only one.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 at 10:23, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: I've seen many arguments that they weren't which is why I put the heading but they were not only geographically close moved in the same cicles - the Twynyhos, Newtons, Chokkes, etc appear together on deeds. I do wonder where the information came from that Stillington never visited his diocese? Commynes again? In the Wells records it says on a couple of occasions that he's in a far part of his diocese - it doesn't say he's out of it. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 21:40
Subject: Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Re the heading on this thread..Closer than we thought..I always believed that George and Stillington were close. George once stayed at the Bishops Palace at Wells.



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-11 17:54:48
Doug Stamate
Eileen, It crossed my mind that quiet conversations may have been held with people such as Elizabeth Mowbray in order to provide support for Stillington. What with Eleanor's connections, by birth and from marriages, any such conversations wouldn't have been highly-publicized, would they? If I recall correctly, Titulus Regius doesn't dwell all that long on Edward's marriage to Eleanor, simply stating who she was and that a clandestine marriage had occurred. As the Pre-Contract was the cornerstone of Richard's claim to the throne, one might think the reason for Richard being his brother's heir would have gotten a bit more space. Perhaps limiting the part about the Pre=Contract, and most importantly with whom, was an effort to ease any hard feelings? Which, as I said, might very well have also resulted in getting as much confirmation as possible, but not via very public methods, such as hauling those involved in front of the Council for questioning. If I also remember it correctly, wasn't anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died. Doug Eileen wrote: Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-11 18:50:05
b.eileen25
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-11 20:12:47
romanenemo



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

Doug:f I also remember it correctly, wasn't anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.

Romane:It's true that one of the better arguments against the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that no one said anything when Edward announced his marriage with EW. But they might have been intimidated. According to Eileen, some servants of the Duchess of Norfolk were executed around the time of Edward's marriage with EW, and it might have been a warning.Or, no one at all knew about the pre contract, except ET, Edward and the priest (Stilligton ?) who had married them.Anyway, IMO the fact that Eleanor's family didn't protest when the pre contract was made public knowledge by Stilligton and Richard can be seen, on the contrary, as an argument in favor of the real existence of that pre contract. Apparently even if the Talbot didn't know about it before, the proofs of its existence that must have been submitted before Richard could be proclaimed king seemed valid enough to them. Else, they would have had every reason to protest.
Eileen,It crossed my mind that quiet conversations may have been held with people such as Elizabeth Mowbray in order to provide support for Stillington. What with Eleanor's connections, by birth and from marriages, any such conversations wouldn't have been highly-publicized, would they?If I recall correctly, Titulus Regius doesn't dwell all that long on Edward's marriage to Eleanor, simply stating who she was and that a clandestine marriage had occurred. As the Pre-Contract was the cornerstone of Richard's claim to the throne, one might think the reason for Richard being his brother's heir would have gotten a bit more space. Perhaps limiting the part about the Pre=Contract, and most importantly with whom, was an effort to ease any hard feelings? Which, as I said, might very well have also resulted in getting as much confirmation as possible, but not via very public methods, such as hauling those involved in front of the Council for questioning.If I also remember it correctly, wasn't anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.Doug Eileen wrote:Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-11 21:22:26
Stephen

The Duchess’s servants are referred to elsewhere and are mentioned in the latest edition of “Eleanor”.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of romanenemo
Sent: 11 July 2017 20:13
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?



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

Doug:

f I also remember it correctly, wasn’t anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.


Romane:

It's true that one of the better arguments against the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that no one said anything when Edward announced his marriage with EW. But they might have been intimidated. According to Eileen, some servants of the Duchess of Norfolk were executed around the time of Edward's marriage with EW, and it might have been a warning.

Or, no one at all knew about the pre contract, except ET, Edward and the priest (Stilligton ?) who had married them.

Anyway, IMO the fact that Eleanor's family didn't protest when the pre contract was made public knowledge by Stilligton and Richard can be seen, on the contrary, as an argument in favor of the real existence of that pre contract. Apparently even if the Talbot didn't know about it before, the proofs of its existence that must have been submitted before Richard could be proclaimed king seemed valid enough to them. Else, they would have had every reason to protest.

Eileen,

It crossed my mind that quiet conversations may have been held with people such as Elizabeth Mowbray in order to provide support for Stillington. What with Eleanor’s connections, by birth and from marriages, any such conversations wouldn’t have been highly-publicized, would they?

If I recall correctly, Titulus Regius doesn’t dwell all that long on Edward’s marriage to Eleanor, simply stating who she was and that a clandestine marriage had occurred. As the Pre-Contract was the cornerstone of Richard’s claim to the throne, one might think the reason for Richard being his brother’s heir would have gotten a bit more space. Perhaps limiting the part about the Pre=Contract, and most importantly with whom, was an effort to ease any hard feelings? Which, as I said, might very well have also resulted in getting as much confirmation as possible, but not via very public methods, such as hauling those involved in front of the Council for questioning.

If I also remember it correctly, wasn’t anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.

Doug

Eileen wrote:

“Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.”


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-12 10:38:25
Hilary Jones
Eileen, I have to agree with your last statement!
Remember the wider Stillington family were part of Richard's close advisers in the North, so if Stillington did come out with this he would almost certainly need their endorsement as a 'good egg'. Also (and I do think we tend to overlook this) he'd been in charge of St Martin's when Anne was there, so my guess is she knew him. Sir William Ingleby, brother to confessor John, was Stillington's nephew by marriage and several others like the Conyers, Burghs and Gowers had been intermarrying with these families for years. If they didn't trust Stillington (and they would have known him all his life) they would surely have whispered in Richard's ear? Their endorsement, as much as any other, means a lot and they didn't stand to gain that much when he became King. In fact they'd probably become more remote to him if someone else became Lord of the North, or that's what they would have thought.
Of course, as I've said before, this argument can be turned on its head to align with the Shakespearean plotter Richard. Can't help thinking he'd have been a bit better prepared it that was the case. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 18:50
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-12 11:15:40
ricard1an
If I remember rightly did John say in Eleanor that only Eleanor could make a complaint but that she didn't so that saved Edward any problems.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-12 15:29:56
Karen O
How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
 

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: St

2017-07-12 18:26:05
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: If I remember rightly did John say in Eleanor that only Eleanor could make a complaint but that she didn't so that saved Edward any problems. Doug here: Yet anyone not telling what they knew would be compounding a felony, wouldn't they? One of those legal loopholes? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-12 21:06:52
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death? Doug here: If I recall the date correctly, Stillington first laid his proofs before the Council on 24 May. We also know the Council was divided into two groups, one supposedly concerning itself with the up-coming coronation and the other taking care of business, but I don't know any date for when the division occurred, it may very well have been at the same meeting. At any rate, that gave Richard three weeks before that meeting on 13 June in which to gather as much information about how likely it was that what Stillington had said was true. I still lean towards there being a lot of suspicion on people's part that something such as the Pre-Contract had occurred, but no actual proof other than what Stillington provided. And, what with the standing of those involved, especially the Talbots, it would make sense to carry out any inquiries quietly. Perhaps that's the reason Richard was angry about that sermon of Shaa's? Not only was the sermon premature, it also may have named names  and in front of just everybody! Eileen continued: Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh. Doug here: I sort of wonder if that wasn't exactly the case? If George's death did result because George knew about the Pre-Contract, I can understand any reluctance on Stillington's part about repeating anything he knew on that subject while Edward was alive. We do know that Stillington had illegitimate children of his own, so perhaps he may have felt that wouldn't, or shouldn't, in and of itself, be a bar against Edward's children?
Eileen concluded: I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more. No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there? Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth. Doug here: Likely it was Vergil because, as far as I know, Mancini never mentioned George (I most certainly could be wrong here!). Or it could have been EW said something about her sons never taking the throne when Mancini was around, and it got misplaced by one of those historians who thought it sounded better if she'd said it during l'affaire George? FWIW, I really don't think George ever knew about the Pre-Contract. This is not to say he mightn't have suspected and, of course, if Edward heard about George voicing such suspicions; well, talk about lese majestie! I'm still going with George dying through Edward's miscalculations concerning the charges he made against George. Edward wanted, in my view, to shut George up, not kill him and oversold his case. Now if, say, EW or one of her relatives, also suspected something such as the Pre-Contract having taken place, that would certainly give them a reason to join in with Parliament in demanding George be executed. So much we don't know  and I still haven't gotten that d*mned TARDIS! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-12 23:05:58
Durose David
Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote:

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?


Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote:

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?


Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 04:46:44
Karen O
Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
 

Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications. 
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:  

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?


Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:  

How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?


Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 09:03:00
Hilary Jones
It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 4:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/biographies/richard-iii-and-the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 09:11:24
Hilary Jones
I'm not one of the three David, but having spent quite a bit of time on Stillington what you say seems to be the truth to date. It came from Commynes and was repeated years' later by Chapuys. I don't know where Marie is at the moment, but I tend to agree with her theory that he became associated with all this because he drafted TR. On the other hand, as I've said on here a lot, he did know people who were close to either Eleanor or Edward and therefore could have known. But then so did others such as Hastings and Catesby. H



From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 23:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 10:23:32
Karen O
Yes. The article is looong. Catesby who was not a knight and didn't fight was immediately executed/silenced. Did he witness Eleanor's deposition? Was Stllington in possession of it? Speculation but he rose very high very quickly.
On Jul 13, 2017 4:03 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 4:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

  Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/ biographies/richard-iii-and- the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications. 
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:   How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:   How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
  Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug?  If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot.  Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence.  They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes.   This is commonsense.  Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR  - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so.  There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward.  Man makes plans and gods laugh.  

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.  
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none.  Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George.  Dying because he knew the truth..



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 12:20:21
Hilary Jones
Yes he's buried just up the road from me Karen. It's a misconception that Catesby rose fast. His ancestors had been favourites of the Black Prince and lawyers and justices in Warwickshire for a long time. They'd served the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick and been 'inherited' by Clarence and also used by people like Hastings. They'd been known to Richard and his family much longer than Buckingham.
Hancock makes the case because Catesby's step-mother was related to Eleanor and their lands on the Warwickshire/Northamptonshire border are quite close. Certainly the Catesbys had coveted land in the Burton Dassett Hills for a long time (the wool trade again!). So he has Eleanor wandering up to visit her relative and spilling the beans, a bit like a character in a Jane Austen novel. He then goes on to confirm it by saying certain church ceilings are alike (most are in this part of the world) and therefore that in Ashby St Ledger (Catesby's church) is like that in Eleanor's neck of the woods. It's a brave attempt but he clearly hasn't 'walked the land' or he would have realised that some of the geographical assertions he makes can be related to a lot in this part of the world. And Eleanor would have had a rather long walk.
My contra argument would be that Catesby really hadn't much further to climb. There was no chance that Richard would make him an Earl or give him a country estate, Plantagenets didn't do that, Tudors did. He might get a bit more land but he was doing very nicely. The Catesby business had been going too long to make one rash act to destabilise it. They did in 1605 of course! H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 10:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Yes. The article is looong. Catesby who was not a knight and didn't fight was immediately executed/silenced. Did he witness Eleanor's deposition? Was Stllington in possession of it? Speculation but he rose very high very quickly.
On Jul 13, 2017 4:03 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 4:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/ biographies/richard-iii-and- the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..





Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 12:32:48
Hilary Jones
Sorry I forgot to add Catesby would know a lot of secrets by nature of his business. Maybe he knew something HT didn't want him to reveal?
Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H? H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 12:20
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Yes he's buried just up the road from me Karen. It's a misconception that Catesby rose fast. His ancestors had been favourites of the Black Prince and lawyers and justices in Warwickshire for a long time. They'd served the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick and been 'inherited' by Clarence and also used by people like Hastings. They'd been known to Richard and his family much longer than Buckingham.
Hancock makes the case because Catesby's step-mother was related to Eleanor and their lands on the Warwickshire/Northamptonshire border are quite close. Certainly the Catesbys had coveted land in the Burton Dassett Hills for a long time (the wool trade again!). So he has Eleanor wandering up to visit her relative and spilling the beans, a bit like a character in a Jane Austen novel. He then goes on to confirm it by saying certain church ceilings are alike (most are in this part of the world) and therefore that in Ashby St Ledger (Catesby's church) is like that in Eleanor's neck of the woods. It's a brave attempt but he clearly hasn't 'walked the land' or he would have realised that some of the geographical assertions he makes can be related to a lot in this part of the world. And Eleanor would have had a rather long walk.
My contra argument would be that Catesby really hadn't much further to climb. There was no chance that Richard would make him an Earl or give him a country estate, Plantagenets didn't do that, Tudors did. He might get a bit more land but he was doing very nicely. The Catesby business had been going too long to make one rash act to destabilise it. They did in 1605 of course! H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 10:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Yes. The article is looong. Catesby who was not a knight and didn't fight was immediately executed/silenced. Did he witness Eleanor's deposition? Was Stllington in possession of it? Speculation but he rose very high very quickly.
On Jul 13, 2017 4:03 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 4:46
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Can't remember at this moment, but here is an article that proposed that William Catesby had direct knowledge.http://erenow.com/ biographies/richard-iii-and- the-murder-in-the-tower/3.html

On Jul 12, 2017 6:05 PM, "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Karen Doug and Eileen,
I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs.
I thought the only source that we have on the giving of evidence is again Commynes and he says that
1 Stillington claimed to have married them alone - no witnesses other than the three principals2 no witnesses or evidence were produced other than the word of Stillington
I am sure there will have been many experts there to put forward the legal implications.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Wed, 12 Jul 2017 at 15:29, Karen O karenoder4@... []<@ yahoogroups.com> wrote: How much time though would be have had to gather everything? Were most of them in London?
On Jul 11, 2017 1:50 PM, "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Doug...My thoughts on this are Stillington tells Richard about the precontract..and all the enormous repercussions dawn on him..what would YOU do Doug? If you found Stillington plausible you would start asking questions especially of those that would clearly have known of course you would..you would seek proof, confirmation and I think the first person to ask would have been Elizabeth Mowbray nee Talbot. Not only that Parliament etc., were going to want proof/evidence. They were not going to take just one man's word on it to bring about these massive changes. This is commonsense. Perhaps it was kept low(ish) key in TR - I read it a long time ago - because EM requested it knowing full well that ET would have wished it so. There are indications that EM cared very much for her sister and tried to protect her in life why not in death?
Stillington may have taken the stance that the precontract , well, it didnt really matter while Edward was alive..he was probably thinking he would die before Edward and save him having to step forward. Man makes plans and gods laugh.

I , obvs, dont know who knew what and when but someone wrote- Vergil or Mancini? - that EW was very concerned that her son(s) would ever take the throne because of what Clarence was going around saying..and then Boom!..Clarence is no more.
No evidence left of what witnesses were asked and answered re the precontract?..well as we know there are, surprise, surprise none. Well there wouldnt be would there?
Poor old George. Dying because he knew the truth..







Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 13:51:45
ricard1an
There was a father and son from the West Country, named Brecher, hanged after Bosworth. Apparently they had been treated well by Richard but Rosemary Horrox wonders why they were treated so harshly after Bosworth. I knew that a father and son had been executed by Tudor but I just googled it to get correct spelling of their name and came across a post on a book written by Glenn Foard, who reports the bit about Horrox. Incidentally he says their name was Bracher but every thing else that I have read says Brecher.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 16:32:18
Hilary Jones
That's them Mary - not an 'H' in sight :). Does anyone know anything else? H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 13:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

There was a father and son from the West Country, named Brecher, hanged after Bosworth. Apparently they had been treated well by Richard but Rosemary Horrox wonders why they were treated so harshly after Bosworth. I knew that a father and son had been executed by Tudor but I just googled it to get correct spelling of their name and came across a post on a book written by Glenn Foard, who reports the bit about Horrox. Incidentally he says their name was Bracher but every thing else that I have read says Brecher.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-13 16:51:46
ricard1an
Just googled some more and found a site called the Brachers of Tisbury. It said they were yeomen who had served Edward but were given appointments by Richard in Somerset and I think Dorset and Devon. It said that they might have been hanged by the delightful Henry because they had warned Richard of Henry's attempt to land in the West Country during the Buckingham rebellion. Suppose that makes sense when you realize what a nasty little grudge holder Tudor was.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-14 11:14:26
Hilary Jones
Thanks Mary. What a lovely person he was. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Just googled some more and found a site called the Brachers of Tisbury. It said they were yeomen who had served Edward but were given appointments by Richard in Somerset and I think Dorset and Devon. It said that they might have been hanged by the delightful Henry because they had warned Richard of Henry's attempt to land in the West Country during the Buckingham rebellion. Suppose that makes sense when you realize what a nasty little grudge holder Tudor was.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-14 22:34:05
Durose David
Hi Romane
Regarding the story about Stillington's son - you asked a while ago whether the story of arrest in the channel was worth believing. I would say it is entirely possible that someone could be arrested there.
In the late 15th century, England France and Brittany did not have permanent national fleets, but relied on private vessels that they could hire to transport armies. To harass the shipping of enemy vessels they authorised corsairs, gave them a kind of licence to attack other ships.
The death of Edward IV seemed to lead to a big spike in piracy around the coasts, especially in the channel. When Edward V was deposed, there was almost a state of war between England and Brittany at sea. He had been engaged to the Duke's daughter and heiress.
So there was a lot of conflict in the channel and elsewhere and Commynes says the son was commanding a ship for his master Richard
If you google Jean Coetanlem you will probably never have heard of him, but he was known as the king of the sea and was the most successful and feared corsair of the period. He replaced Columbus as admiral of Portugal. He was a Breton but often worked on behalf of France.
In 1484 there was the disputed 'sack of Bristol' - it is likely this was actually a naval engagement in the approaches to Bristol. Coetanlem came away with some of the leading citizens of the town.
His nephew built the first big warship of the period, the Marie la Cordelière (a song by Fairport Convention) and was a friend of Henry Tudor.
Coetanlem the uncle's ships turned up among those carrying Henry from Normandy to Wales where they used charts drawn up by him in 1484.
So yes there was war in the Channel and prisoners were taken during the troubles.
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 20:12, romanenemo<[email protected]> wrote:




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

Doug:f I also remember it correctly, wasn't anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.

Romane:It's true that one of the better arguments against the real existence of the pre contract is the fact that no one said anything when Edward announced his marriage with EW. But they might have been intimidated. According to Eileen, some servants of the Duchess of Norfolk were executed around the time of Edward's marriage with EW, and it might have been a warning.Or, no one at all knew about the pre contract, except ET, Edward and the priest (Stilligton ?) who had married them.Anyway, IMO the fact that Eleanor's family didn't protest when the pre contract was made public knowledge by Stilligton and Richard can be seen, on the contrary, as an argument in favor of the real existence of that pre contract. Apparently even if the Talbot didn't know about it before, the proofs of its existence that must have been submitted before Richard could be proclaimed king seemed valid enough to them. Else, they would have had every reason to protest.
Eileen,It crossed my mind that quiet conversations may have been held with people such as Elizabeth Mowbray in order to provide support for Stillington. What with Eleanor's connections, by birth and from marriages, any such conversations wouldn't have been highly-publicized, would they?If I recall correctly, Titulus Regius doesn't dwell all that long on Edward's marriage to Eleanor, simply stating who she was and that a clandestine marriage had occurred. As the Pre-Contract was the cornerstone of Richard's claim to the throne, one might think the reason for Richard being his brother's heir would have gotten a bit more space. Perhaps limiting the part about the Pre=Contract, and most importantly with whom, was an effort to ease any hard feelings? Which, as I said, might very well have also resulted in getting as much confirmation as possible, but not via very public methods, such as hauling those involved in front of the Council for questioning.If I also remember it correctly, wasn't anyone who had definitely known about the Pre-Contract, required by law, both civil and religious, to tell what they knew when Edward announced he was married to Elizabeth Woodville. Yet nothing came out when Edward and Warwick were at loggerheads or, as far as we know, even when George was running amok after Isabel died.Doug Eileen wrote:Its very possible that they/someone did say something..especially Elizabeth Mowbray..Richard undoubtedly would have required back up of Stillington's story..but if they did and who is now lost to us as was Titulous Regius (for a while)..HT and his human shredders would have made sure of that.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-15 15:53:09
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Likely it was Vergil because, as far as I know, Mancini never mentioned George (I most certainly could be wrong here!)."

Carol responds:

Mancini did mention George. He's the one who says that Richard was upset by George's death and went north afterward. I think it was also Mancini who wrote about EW fearing that her sons would never become king if George was alive. He also says or implies strongly that Richard thought the Woodvilles were responsible for his brother's death--something about "he couldn't dissimulate so well."

Unfortunately, I don't own a copy of Mancini and it's not online. The American branch of the RIII Society has Croyland, More, Vergil, and others. Why they don't have Mancini, I don't know. Wish they did--not because I think he's the accurate source some people claim him to be, but because we have to work with/around him and Croyland, with what few genuine documents are out there, to try to find the truth.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 16:29:58
justcarol67
David wrote:

"I would be interested in the source for Stillington's presenting proofs."

Carol responds:

I don't think there's a source, but his presenting proofs is a reasonably safe assumption based on several pieces of evidence.

First, and probably most important, the Three Estates, many of whom were clergymen and/or lawyers, accepted his arguments (as they surely would not have done without proofs). Both Titulus Regius and the original petition it quotes verbatim regard the marriage to Eleanor Butler (her maiden name is not used) as a fact.

Second, Stillington offers to produce proofs for the witchcraft accusations, implying that he has not already done so. Since he does not offer to produce proofs for the precontract, we can assume that he has already done so.

Third, HT made sure that Stillington was not interrogated by *his* Parliament (and had him arrested). He must have been afraid that Stillington would produce the same proofs that had convinced the Three Estates in 1483.

I realize that these pieces of evidence don't constitute proof, nor are they a source. But they do indicate a strong probability that Stillington didn't simply say "They were married. Take my word for it."

The Three Estates were clearly convinced by Stillington's arguments and presented the petition to Richard of their own volition. (The suggestion by anti-Richards that they feared retaliation is absurd, He still had only the 300 men he had brought with him from Yorkshire, the troops he'd sent for having not yet arrived, while every magnate had his own troops with him.)

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 16:36:19
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor."

Carol adds:

Hancock relies heavily on Sir Thomas More. I would take him with a tablespoon of salt.

Carol

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

2017-07-15 16:45:13
b.eileen25
I've just bought a second hand copy of the usurpation of Richard lll Dominic Mancini translated by Armstrong. Annette Carson recommended it.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 17:14:58
b.eileen25
Peter Hancock definitely did not reach his conclusion that 'Catesby Snr was married to a relation of EB' via More. He writes 'in terms of familial relationship Joan (Barre) was Eleanor's first cousin with the common grandfather and grandmother in Richard Talbot and Ankaret Strange.........however following the death of her first husband Joan remarried, this time to Sir William Catesby of Ashby St Ledger (our Catesby's father). Hancock continues that following this marriage Sir William and Joan had three children, OUr William would have probably been in his early teens when he gained his new stepmother, Joan, Eleanor's cousin, Hancock covers this subject indepth and his source would be J Bertram, The Catesby Family and Their Brasses at Ashby St Ledger, Monumental Brass Society, Burlington House, London 2006.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 17:35:03
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H?"

Carol responds:

Kendall mentions that Henry hanged a father and son named Brecher and calls them "West Country yeomen" https://books.google.com/books?id=thl5CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Murray+Kendall&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2eel1ovVAhVGymMKHXD7DykQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Catesby&f=false

He speculates that they "did such execution that Oxford's lieutenants marked them in memory." He doesn't name a source.

A different version appears in Hutton, 1788: "Two gentlemen of the north, of the name of Brecher, were beheaded with him [Catesby]. Thus the first regal act performed by Henry, was an act of tyranny, the very fault for which his predecessor was deposed." https://books.google.com/books?id=-rUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Brecher+Bosworth&source=bl&ots=9uuuQnvNrx&sig=4OuexML61T2W8y4uDiQsF_qyRdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixz-mO2ovVAhWhsFQKHSwSCRwQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Brecher%20Bosworth&f=false

As for the "H," you may be thinking of Humphrey Stafford, who, with his brother Thomas and Viscount Lovell, tried to raise a rebellion against HT after Bosworth. Henry had him pulled from sanctuary and executed.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 22:07:23
Hilary Jones
But the genealogy is correct Carol. As for Hancock, I agree with you. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 16:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor."

Carol adds:

Hancock relies heavily on Sir Thomas More. I would take him with a tablespoon of salt.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 22:22:24
Hilary Jones
That's right Eileen. Joan Barre (who is also related to our naughty lot in Somerset) had 3 children by Catesby but had already been married to Sir Kynard Delabere, Sheriff of Hereford by whom she also had children H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:15
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Peter Hancock definitely did not reach his conclusion that 'Catesby Snr was married to a relation of EB' via More. He writes 'in terms of familial relationship Joan (Barre) was Eleanor's first cousin with the common grandfather and grandmother in Richard Talbot and Ankaret Strange.........however following the death of her first husband Joan remarried, this time to Sir William Catesby of Ashby St Ledger (our Catesby's father). Hancock continues that following this marriage Sir William and Joan had three children, OUr William would have probably been in his early teens when he gained his new stepmother, Joan, Eleanor's cousin, Hancock covers this subject indepth and his source would be J Bertram, The Catesby Family and Their Brasses at Ashby St Ledger, Monumental Brass Society, Burlington House, London 2006.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 22:29:31
Hilary Jones
Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H?"

Carol responds:

Kendall mentions that Henry hanged a father and son named Brecher and calls them "West Country yeomen" https://books.google.com/books?id=thl5CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Murray+Kendall&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2eel1ovVAhVGymMKHXD7DykQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Catesby&f=false

He speculates that they "did such execution that Oxford's lieutenants marked them in memory." He doesn't name a source.

A different version appears in Hutton, 1788: "Two gentlemen of the north, of the name of Brecher, were beheaded with him [Catesby]. Thus the first regal act performed by Henry, was an act of tyranny, the very fault for which his predecessor was deposed." https://books.google.com/books?id=-rUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Brecher+Bosworth&source=bl&ots=9uuuQnvNrx&sig=4OuexML61T2W8y4uDiQsF_qyRdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixz-mO2ovVAhWhsFQKHSwSCRwQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Brecher%20Bosworth&f=false

As for the "H," you may be thinking of Humphrey Stafford, who, with his brother Thomas and Viscount Lovell, tried to raise a rebellion against HT after Bosworth. Henry had him pulled from sanctuary and executed.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-15 22:37:19
Durose David
Hilary,
Re Brechers, I remember reading on this forum that they were rewarded by Richard for their action around the time of Henry's attempted landing on the south coast.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 at 22:29, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Marhy you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H?"

Carol responds:

Kendall mentions that Henry hanged a father and son named Brecher and calls them "West Country yeomen" https://books.google.com/books?id=thl5CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Murray+Kendall&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2eel1ovVAhVGymMKHXD7DykQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Catesby&f=false

He speculates that they "did such execution that Oxford's lieutenants marked them in memory." He doesn't name a source.

A different version appears in Hutton, 1788: "Two gentlemen of the north, of the name of Brecher, were beheaded with him [Catesby]. Thus the first regal act performed by Henry, was an act of tyranny, the very fault for which his predecessor was deposed." https://books.google.com/books?id=-rUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Brecher+Bosworth&source=bl&ots=9uuuQnvNrx&sig=4OuexML61T2W8y4uDiQsF_qyRdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixz-mO2ovVAhWhsFQKHSwSCRwQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Brecher%20Bosworth&f=false

As for the "H," you may be thinking of Humphrey Stafford, who, with his brother Thomas and Viscount Lovell, tried to raise a rebellion against HT after Bosworth. Henry had him pulled from sanctuary and executed.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-16 12:26:00
Hilary Jones
It's Horrox from Croyland. What really interests me is how Edward came upon Bracher in the early 1470s. He was operating in a very dangerous neck of the woods i.e. Morton/Stillington country. I wonder if he was a spy. Certainly the Brachers seem to have been the lower gentry, or became so. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 22:37
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary,
Re Brechers, I remember reading on this forum that they were rewarded by Richard for their action around the time of Henry's attempted landing on the south coast.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 at 22:29, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Marhy you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:35
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Incidentally, there were two other people executed after Bosworth whose names escape me (of the same family). No-one seems to know why. Does anyone know who I'm talking about? I'm pretty sure their names began with H?"

Carol responds:

Kendall mentions that Henry hanged a father and son named Brecher and calls them "West Country yeomen" https://books.google.com/books?id=thl5CgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Paul+Murray+Kendall&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip2eel1ovVAhVGymMKHXD7DykQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Catesby&f=false

He speculates that they "did such execution that Oxford's lieutenants marked them in memory." He doesn't name a source.

A different version appears in Hutton, 1788: "Two gentlemen of the north, of the name of Brecher, were beheaded with him [Catesby]. Thus the first regal act performed by Henry, was an act of tyranny, the very fault for which his predecessor was deposed." https://books.google.com/books?id=-rUBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=Brecher+Bosworth&source=bl&ots=9uuuQnvNrx&sig=4OuexML61T2W8y4uDiQsF_qyRdQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixz-mO2ovVAhWhsFQKHSwSCRwQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=Brecher%20Bosworth&f=false

As for the "H," you may be thinking of Humphrey Stafford, who, with his brother Thomas and Viscount Lovell, tried to raise a rebellion against HT after Bosworth. Henry had him pulled from sanctuary and executed.

Carol





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

2017-07-16 17:23:02
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. Doug here: It's getting to the point where the question is going to be who wasn't married to someone involved! Doug Who is also starting to wonder if all this inter-marrying wasn't encouraged by the Church in order to gin up those Dispensation fees...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-16 18:56:48
justcarol67


Eileen wrote:

"I've just bought a second hand copy of the usurpation of Richard lll Dominic Mancini translated by Armstrong. Annette Carson recommended it."

Carol responds:

I should do the same (instead of relying on memory or snippets of Mancini in secondary sources). It's an essential source, along with Croyland, but as you know, it has its limitations, including Mancini's (mostly anonymous) sources (most if not all of them anti-Richard), his lack of English, his inadequate understanding of English government and geography, and most of all, his assumption that Richard aimed at the crown from the moment of Edward's death. He makes some egregious errors (such as saying that Richard held no public office before he was named Protector. He also has the humanist tendency to create imaginary conversations and letters (he could not have seen the letters that Hastings sent to Richard, for example). Too many historians have taken what he says (or what Croyland says) as fact without considering bias and limitations. But we need to know where our information comes from, and some of what he says is reliable.

I hate Armstrong's translation of the title, though, especially since "The Usurpation of Richard III" appears as a source in every single biography and almost every article about Richard!

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-16 19:04:55
justcarol67
Eileen wrote:

"Peter Hancock definitely did not reach his conclusion that 'Catesby Snr was married to a relation of EB' via More."

Carol responds:

Sorry to be unclear. I didn't mean that his research into Catesby's connections was via More. I meant the whole idea that it was Catesby who ratted ("catted?") on Hastings comes from More. It does not appear in Croyland, Mancini, or any other contemporary source.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-16 19:37:22
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.
I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward."

Carol responds:

I saw your post and Mary's after I had sent mine. (As I've said before, it's hard to check for responses to messages to see if someone has already answered.)

Do we know where Hutton got his (mis)information or where Kendall got his? Do you know where the record is showing that these two were hanged or beheaded? (I'd venture that "hanged" is correct as they weren't noblemen or knights.)

It still seems very odd that Henry would single them out. (Catesby is another matter. As former Speaker of the Commons, he undoubtedly knew too much about TR/the petition from the Three Estates and may have had a hand in writing it.)

Carol

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-16 19:45:07
b.eileen25
Ok Carol. I've drawn my conclusions (that Catesby ratted on Hastings) for various reasons. I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly. Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far. Just my own musings of course.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-16 22:51:47
Karen O
     Peter seems to agree with Moore. He reaches this conclusion because Catesby got such huge rewards. He lists them all and says Catesby was one of the wealthiest landowners in England briefly. He was married to a cousin of Eleanor who lived about twenty miles away. Catesby s father had worked for Eleanor's father. He speculates they saw one another socially.      Catesby could have known about the pre Contract. Hastings almost certainly, I think.  Yes Catesby had to die right away to silence him forever. He was only a lawyer, not even Knighted. 
On Jul 16, 2017 2:37 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Hilary wrote:

"Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.
I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward."

Carol responds:

I saw your post and Mary's after I had sent mine. (As I've said before, it's hard to check for responses to messages to see if someone has already answered.)

Do we know where Hutton got his (mis)information or where Kendall got his? Do you know where the record is showing that these two were hanged or beheaded? (I'd venture that "hanged" is correct as they weren't noblemen or knights.)

It still seems very odd that Henry would single them out. (Catesby is another matter. As former Speaker of the Commons, he undoubtedly knew too much about TR/the petition from the Three Estates and may have had a hand in writing it.)

Carol

Carol

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

2017-07-17 09:36:06
Hilary Jones
You mean like IPMs, they must have kept half the country busy? Perhaps in times of high unemployment they should bring all this back. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 17:23
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote: It's in Peter Hancock's book 'Richard III and the Murder in the Tower' Karen. Catesby senior was married to a relative of Eleanor. Doug here: It's getting to the point where the question is going to be who wasn't married to someone involved! Doug Who is also starting to wonder if all this inter-marrying wasn't encouraged by the Church in order to gin up those Dispensation fees...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 10:02:48
Hilary Jones
I agree with you about Catesby Eileen, he just knew everything about everyone, probably going back to about 1380. And some of that could have been to do with HT or his circle.
Horrox (pages 182 and 261) gets it from the CPR for Richard and as usual makes it sound as though it's a Richard bribe. What's interesting is that in March 1484 Brecher is given some of the attainted lands of William Berkeley, including Chedder and other bits in Somerset surrounding 'Stillington country'. We know this was dangerous territory (Morton, Hungerford, Courtenay and indeed the Twynyhos) all operated from there and Brecher had also been operating there from, my guess is, since before Tewkesbury. This is of course also Clarence country. What did the Brechers know and who 'told on them'?
I could do with digging more on Ankarette's brother Thomas Burdon. If he could forge a deed in 1469 which was still being believed in 1484 what else did he forge and who found him out? He obviously came from a family of proficient forgers. It's all very murky and I reckon the Berkeleys are somewhere in this as well - I keep bumping into them too many times. H



From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 19:37
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.
I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward."

Carol responds:

I saw your post and Mary's after I had sent mine. (As I've said before, it's hard to check for responses to messages to see if someone has already answered.)

Do we know where Hutton got his (mis)information or where Kendall got his? Do you know where the record is showing that these two were hanged or beheaded? (I'd venture that "hanged" is correct as they weren't noblemen or knights.)

It still seems very odd that Henry would single them out. (Catesby is another matter. As former Speaker of the Commons, he undoubtedly knew too much about TR/the petition from the Three Estates and may have had a hand in writing it.)

Carol

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 10:11:56
Hilary Jones
FWIW I reckon Hastings did know about the Pre Contract but in his head Edward (IV) his friend was still king. So he remained loyal and alerted Richard to the misdeeds of the Woodvilles. He would never have known that someone would come forward and reveal the Pre Contract, because Edward had convinced him that he'd silenced everyone who knew.
So he was in a dreadful place. Once someone came forward about it and someone else 'ratted' that he knew (and my money would be on Dorset via Jane Shore pillow talk) Richard would be devastated, probably as much because Edward had confided in Hastings but hadn't confided in him, as to learn that such a thing existed. So Richard metaphorically thumps Hastings and, when it's too late realises the poor man was between a rock and a hard place. Hence he still permits Hastings to be buried by Edward and takes care of his wife, who is Anne's aunt. That makes the whole episode logical to me. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 19:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Ok Carol. I've drawn my conclusions (that Catesby ratted on Hastings) for various reasons. I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly. Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far. Just my own musings of course.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 10:30:38
Hilary Jones

The Catesbys had worked for everyone who was anyone and their main interest had been in obtaining lucrative sheep lands in the Burton Dassett hills - they'd had big rows with the Beauchamp Earls of Warwick about this, but still worked for them. Being a lawyer was a lucrative occupation. If you read Christine Carpenter on the gentry in Warwickshire it was awash with them - look at all those land deeds. Horrox details several people who got similar rewards to Catesby, a lot of them coming from the lands of the attainted rebels of 1483.
It was Catesby's father (who was knighted, as was his cousin the judge, Sir John) who was married to Joan Barre, the daughter of Alice Talbot, Eleanor's aunt. She was his second wife, not William junior's mother and died in 1471.
As for the reason for his execution, one of his chief sponsors had been had been Buckingham, room for thought there. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 22:51
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Peter seems to agree with Moore. He reaches this conclusion because Catesby got such huge rewards. He lists them all and says Catesby was one of the wealthiest landowners in England briefly. He was married to a cousin of Eleanor who lived about twenty miles away. Catesby s father had worked for Eleanor's father. He speculates they saw one another socially. Catesby could have known about the pre Contract. Hastings almost certainly, I think. Yes Catesby had to die right away to silence him forever. He was only a lawyer, not even Knighted.
On Jul 16, 2017 2:37 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
Hilary wrote:

"Carol, if you look at my earlier posts and that of Mary you'll see that the Brechers were indeed from Wiltshire. William Brecher was made Forester of Purbeck Forest in Dorset by Edward in 1473 for some sort of services rendered. Certainly Brecher was dead by 1486 because his widow had remarried and there was a dispute over his lands.
I have to say I find it odd. I can find no record so far of any dealings with Richard or anything he did for Edward."

Carol responds:

I saw your post and Mary's after I had sent mine. (As I've said before, it's hard to check for responses to messages to see if someone has already answered.)

Do we know where Hutton got his (mis)information or where Kendall got his? Do you know where the record is showing that these two were hanged or beheaded? (I'd venture that "hanged" is correct as they weren't noblemen or knights.)

It still seems very odd that Henry would single them out. (Catesby is another matter. As former Speaker of the Commons, he undoubtedly knew too much about TR/the petition from the Three Estates and may have had a hand in writing it.)

Carol

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 10:36:11
b.eileen25
CAtesby was. Obviously a very talented man. But Tudor chose not to utilise his skills. Was this because he knew full well how untrustworthy CAtesby was...and was perfectly capable of turning his coat yet again if the chance came along. The devious stanleys would have understood this too heingmof that ilk. That is why they let CAtesby down when push came to shove..witness CAtesby tangible shock in his will when he realises they are not going to rescue him.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 10:37:39
b.eileen25
Should have read 'being of that ilk'

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 16:56:24
justcarol67



Eileen wrote:

"Ok Carol. I've drawn my conclusions (that Catesby ratted on Hastings) for various reasons. I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly. Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far. Just my own musings of course."

Carol responds:

Given that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham were meeting "in each others' houses," I'm pretty sure that Hastings was guilty. As for who informed on him, we can't know, but Catesby (executed by Henry VII) was a convenient scapegoat for More, just as Tyrrell (also executed by Henry) was (not only for More and Vergil but for earlier Tudor chroniclers).

I'm not a fan of Catesby, I just see no contemporary evidence for his guilt (if "guilt" is the word given Hastings's almost certain treason) in this matter.

Not arguing with you or trying to convince you, just stating my own view of the matter.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-07-17 16:57:58
Doug Stamate
Well, I'd think a computer screen might be a bit easier to read... Doug Hilary wrote: You mean like IPMs, they must have kept half the country busy? Perhaps in times of high unemployment they should bring all this back. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 17:12:12
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"Once someone came forward about it and someone else 'ratted' that he [Hastings] knew (and my money would be on Dorset via Jane Shore pillow talk) Richard would be devastated, probably as much because Edward had confided in Hastings but hadn't confided in him, as to learn that such a thing existed. So Richard metaphorically thumps Hastings and, when it's too late realises the poor man was between a rock and a hard place. Hence he still permits Hastings to be buried by Edward and takes care of his wife, who is Anne's aunt. That makes the whole episode logical to me."

Carol responds:

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but I don't think Richard would "thump" someone for knowing about the precontract and not telling him. I suspect that Hastings was really plotting to kill him. Of course, given that he was captain of Calais and had troops at his command, he was much more dangerous than the other plotters, and Morton and Rotherham were protected by being priests. But you don't execute someone if they're not a genuine danger.

Whether Hastings was objecting to Richard's becoming king (which, as far as I know, had not yet proposed) or to what he viewed as an over-strong and prolonged protectorship, I don't know, but he must have presented a real danger. Merely concealing what he knew about the precontract would not constitute treason, and would not result in the arrests of Morton, Rotherham, Oliver King, and others.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 17:51:46
Karen O
Hastings almost certainly knew of the Eleanor Talbot situation. Not revealing it was a crime. According to Hancock Catesby threw his master Hastings under the bus. He then got very rich. He doesn't believe he would have gotten so much just for being a competent lawyer.  I haven't read the whole book. I will buy it at the end of this month. The online except was so riveting. Some people collect dolls, I collect Richard III books.
On Jul 17, 2017 11:56 AM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 




Eileen wrote:

"Ok Carol.  I've drawn my conclusions (that  Catesby  ratted on Hastings)  for various reasons.  I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly.  Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far.  Just my own musings of course."

Carol responds:

Given that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham were meeting "in each others' houses," I'm pretty sure that Hastings was guilty. As for who informed on him, we can't know, but Catesby (executed by Henry VII) was a convenient scapegoat for More, just as Tyrrell (also executed by Henry) was (not only for More and Vergil but for earlier Tudor chroniclers).

I'm not a fan of Catesby, I just see no contemporary evidence for his guilt (if "guilt" is the word given Hastings's almost certain treason) in this matter.

Not arguing with you or trying to convince you, just stating my own view of the matter.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 18:31:29
b.eileen25
In the meantime I posted a very good article in the files: Catesby article by D Williams.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 18:44:25
Hilary Jones
I think it's what you mean by 'guilty' Carol. Yes I think he knew about the Pre Contract but he almost certainly thought he was being loyal to Edward his late king, by not disclosing it. After all, who knew the world would fall in? I can't for a moment think he dealt with the Woodvilles. I think instead it's all about Richard's hurt. Imagine running everywhere for your brother since you were seventeen to prove your loyalty and then you realise he trusted his friend more than you. And you are left with an enormous mess. Poor Hastings, poor Richard. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?




Eileen wrote:

"Ok Carol. I've drawn my conclusions (that Catesby ratted on Hastings) for various reasons. I guess we will never know for sure frustratingly. Whether Hastings was guilty of plotting against Richard OR simply framed I still haven't quite made my mind up but veer slightly to he was and because he may have wanted the Woodvilles out of the equation but removIng Edward of Westminster was a step too far. Just my own musings of course."

Carol responds:

Given that Hastings, Morton, and Rotherham were meeting "in each others' houses," I'm pretty sure that Hastings was guilty. As for who informed on him, we can't know, but Catesby (executed by Henry VII) was a convenient scapegoat for More, just as Tyrrell (also executed by Henry) was (not only for More and Vergil but for earlier Tudor chroniclers).

I'm not a fan of Catesby, I just see no contemporary evidence for his guilt (if "guilt" is the word given Hastings's almost certain treason) in this matter.

Not arguing with you or trying to convince you, just stating my own view of the matter.

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Societ

2017-07-17 18:46:08
Hilary Jones
Which is why I so respect Ross, Horrox, Kendall, you name 'em. Ploughing through all that writing and Latin. It's bad enough with wills and IPMs. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 16:58
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Well, I'd think a computer screen might be a bit easier to read... Doug Hilary wrote: You mean like IPMs, they must have kept half the country busy? Perhaps in times of high unemployment they should bring all this back. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 18:48:49
ricard1an
Yes Carol it is odd that he should execute just two yeomen. I believe Edward had a policy to execute the nobles but spare the commons. I wonder why they were singled out.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 18:54:02
Hilary Jones
Sorry we disagree on this. I don't think Hastings was plotting to kill Richard at all (why did he send warning to him at Northampton) but Hastings did know about the Pre Contract and not disclose it, which was treason in itself as you say. Do you honestly think Richard would have allowed Hastings to be buried next to his brother in St George's if he thought he was that much of a traitor? Morton, Rotherham etc might have been arrested round about then but have nothing whatsoever to do with Hastings, particularly Morton. And is this post hoc Croyland?
As I've explained elsewhere, the discovery that Hastings knew something about Edward which Richard, his brother and deputy for years didn't, must have been immensely painful. I think in that moment he'd do more than thump him - he'd take his head off, which he did. And then he'd regret it immensely, which he did. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 17:12
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"Once someone came forward about it and someone else 'ratted' that he [Hastings] knew (and my money would be on Dorset via Jane Shore pillow talk) Richard would be devastated, probably as much because Edward had confided in Hastings but hadn't confided in him, as to learn that such a thing existed. So Richard metaphorically thumps Hastings and, when it's too late realises the poor man was between a rock and a hard place. Hence he still permits Hastings to be buried by Edward and takes care of his wife, who is Anne's aunt. That makes the whole episode logical to me."

Carol responds:

Forgive me if I've misunderstood you, but I don't think Richard would "thump" someone for knowing about the precontract and not telling him. I suspect that Hastings was really plotting to kill him. Of course, given that he was captain of Calais and had troops at his command, he was much more dangerous than the other plotters, and Morton and Rotherham were protected by being priests. But you don't execute someone if they're not a genuine danger.

Whether Hastings was objecting to Richard's becoming king (which, as far as I know, had not yet proposed) or to what he viewed as an over-strong and prolonged protectorship, I don't know, but he must have presented a real danger. Merely concealing what he knew about the precontract would not constitute treason, and would not result in the arrests of Morton, Rotherham, Oliver King, and others.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 18:54:28
Hilary Jones
Thanks Eileen, I'll look. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 18:31
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

In the meantime I posted a very good article in the files: Catesby article by D Williams.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 19:10:53
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"I think it's what you mean by 'guilty' Carol. Yes I think he knew about the Pre Contract but he almost certainly thought he was being loyal to Edward his late king, by not disclosing it. After all, who knew the world would fall in? I can't for a moment think he dealt with the Woodvilles. I think instead it's all about Richard's hurt. Imagine running everywhere for your brother since you were seventeen to prove your loyalty and then you realise he trusted his friend more than you. And you are left with an enormous mess. Poor Hastings, poor Richard."

Carol responds:

So you do think that Hastings plotted against Richard's life, but not with the Woodvilles? Otherwise, Richard is guilty of murder (as opposed to ordering a legal execution for treason).

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 19:47:57
justcarol67
Eileen wrote:

"In the meantime I posted a very good article in the files: Catesby article by D Williams. "

Carol responds:

Thanks, Eileen. But, again, we have a reliance on More. I would also take issue with the Croyland Chronicler's statement (quoted in the article) that Richard "hardly ever dared offer any opposition" to the opinions of Catesby and Ratcliffe. And I wonder where Williams got the idea that John Foster (one of Hastings's associates implicated in the treason plot) was "persuaded" to give up a stewardship (soon awarded to Catesby) "under sinister threats of intimidation, and, indeed actual starvation." That doesn't sound like Richard III (or behavior he would countenance) to me. The source he cites, "Regista Johannis Whethamstede," is for the quotation that follows (the Bishop of St. Albans's remark about Catesby being a great counselor of Richard's), not the starvation/intimidation allegation.

Sorry, but I'm very leery of any source that cites More (or fails to recognize Croyland's anti-Richard bias).

BTW, I don't doubt that Catesby had some connection with Titulus Regius and possibly knowledge of the Edward/Eleanor marriage (in itself sufficient reason for HT to want him dead--he also imprisoned Stillington but' like Richard, scrupled to execute a priest). I just don't think we have sufficient contemporary or near/contemporary evidence to convict him of framing Hastings (who, in my view, probably was not innocent in any case).

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 19:57:16
b.eileen25
nevertheless carol it's a very interesting article. People can read it and draw their own conclusions.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 21:00:25
b.eileen25
Another interesting article on Catesby by J Roskell. We are lucky there is no shortage of information on Catesby's career.CATESBY, John (d.1404/5), of Ashby St. Ledgers, Northants. and ...

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 21:02:39
b.eileen25
This is probably a better link. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2051&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 21:57:47
justcarol67


Eileen wrote:

"nevertheless carol it's a very interesting article. People can read it and draw their own conclusions. "

Carol responds:

Absolutely. But that starvation accusation worries me. Wonder where it came from? And do you know of any Catesby articles that don't cite More? (Haven't checked your newest link yet.)

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:04:15
justcarol67
Eileen wrote:

"Another interesting article on Catesby by J Roskell. We are lucky there is no shortage of information on Catesby's career. CATESBY, John (d.1404/5), of Ashby St. Ledgers, Northants. and ..." https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj32be_jZHVAhUHJVAKHU5QCOwQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyofparliamentonline.org%2Fvolume%2F1386-1421%2Fmember%2Fcatesby-john-14045&usg=AFQjCNHV5PxE-Unzi8ra6o6xYA86pPrGhA"

Carol responds:

Oops. Wrong Catesby. The one for William isn't up yet as they're still working on the 1422-1505 section of the site. But this is the type of factual, objective information I would like to see on "our" Catesby. This will be a very useful site not only for him but for all the MPs from Richard's reign when it's finished.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:11:39
ricard1an
Yes I agree about wanting the Woodvilles out of the way and don't forget what they were doing was illegal but I just have this feeling that MB is involved somewhere along the line. My old theory that if Henry was to get the throne then Mummy would have to get rid of the old guard including Hastings and that is what happened everyone who stood in the way was dead by August 1485.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:16:48
b.eileen25
Most books/articles covering our subject i.e. Richard and his contemporaries 'cite' More. This is, obviously, not to say that they agree with what More wrote. But casting More aside for the moment,these two articles that I have mentioned are very good in covering Catesby's life, family, career, downfall, his connection to Hastings etc., and very handy to anyone interested in finding out more about him and the part he played, if any, in Richard's betrayal/downfall. I thoughly recommend them with that in mind.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:22:50
b.eileen25
Yes indeed..you need to use the second link to get the Roskell article. Here it is again.https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2051&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:27:34
b.eileen25
Agreed Mary..have you read The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson. We could also add to the list Eleanor Talbot.
What a nest of vipers.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:40:47
Hilary Jones
I'm working backwards. Roskell's is er ... strange. He says nothing about the Catesbys' origins in Coventry, which is where they came from. He says nothing about their relationship with the Black Prince. Coventry had belonged to Isabella, consort of Edward II, and Edward the Black Prince had inherited it. To this day the city's motto is Camera Principis - the Prince's Chamber, and the Catesbys had held appointments and commissions of array from the Black Prince. He also says nothing about their relationships with the Beauchamps - Thomas and Richard, though he does mention their desire to acquire Ladbroke in the Burton Dassett hills. John Catesby had married Isabella Ladbroke in about 1327. His son was 7 times MP and High Sheriff of Warks. So they were not unremarkable.
Sorry Eileen, honest! What I would say with regard to Hastings is that he would never have gone over to the Woodvilles. Why? Well if you look at the spats in Leicestershire between the Hastings and Grey (for that read Woodville) families going right through to the 1510s there's no way that the two families would have compromised over land. It was like Robin Hood, well worth reading. H




From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Most books/articles covering our subject i.e. Richard and his contemporaries 'cite' More. This is, obviously, not to say that they agree with what More wrote. But casting More aside for the moment,these two articles that I have mentioned are very good in covering Catesby's life, family, career, downfall, his connection to Hastings etc., and very handy to anyone interested in finding out more about him and the part he played, if any, in Richard's betrayal/downfall. I thoughly recommend them with that in mind.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 22:50:50
b.eileen25
Agree Hilary re Hastings..and yet should we note that his step daughter Cicely Bonville had a Wydeville Husband. What a nest of vipers.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 23:05:09
b.eileen25
Sorry if this shows up twice..but
Are we to believe that Hastings would prefer a Tudor to a Yorkist Richard on the throne? Really?


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 23:06:52
b.eileen25
Are we to suppose that Hastings preferred a Tudor on the throne to a Yorkist Richard?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-17 23:52:00
b.eileen25
I cannot move on from my suspicion that Hastings might have been set up. Those secret meetings might well have been to sound him out in some way and when he didn't play ball then he had to go. Maybe he dithered. MAybe he was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard maybe he wasn't...how ironic if all,this time we have been mistaken about him. Why was Catesby relying on the Stanleys to save him? What had he done that he would have thought they would and was so shocked when they didn't? THe problem is as ever that the victors write history and this has never been truer than in the events leading up to Richard's betrayal,and death and the usurpation of Henry Tudor. Just think how different Bosworth might have turned out if Hastings had still been around...oh yes and Clarence too, but that's another story. There is still just so much we don't know. The human shredders made sure of that.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 09:17:19
Hilary Jones
I agree with you. And it was so convenient that both were out of the way, as indeed was the original heir. What's that saying about co-incidences?
You might be interested in the Catesby section below. It's an old book (but I love the style of old local histories) and it of course takes Shakespeare as bible. Neither does it describe the Catesby careers. But it is interesting that 'the locals' view Catesby as a hero for being loyal to Richard. It's a story repeated on the village website - that he in fact offered Richard a horse at Bosworth :) H
Ladbroke and its owners
Ladbroke and its owners


From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 23:52
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

I cannot move on from my suspicion that Hastings might have been set up. Those secret meetings might well have been to sound him out in some way and when he didn't play ball then he had to go. Maybe he dithered. MAybe he was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard maybe he wasn't...how ironic if all,this time we have been mistaken about him. Why was Catesby relying on the Stanleys to save him? What had he done that he would have thought they would and was so shocked when they didn't? THe problem is as ever that the victors write history and this has never been truer than in the events leading up to Richard's betrayal,and death and the usurpation of Henry Tudor. Just think how different Bosworth might have turned out if Hastings had still been around...oh yes and Clarence too, but that's another story. There is still just so much we don't know. The human shredders made sure of that.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 10:30:06
b.eileen25
Thanks Hilary..I'm interested in reading anything I can about CAtesby and Hastings at this moment. CAtesby especially.
I had another thought about CAtesby getting the chop, My first thought was HT was too slippery to trust someone who betrayed their associates/King...but also the reason might have also been that CAtesby was involved in the drawing up of TR ..it would have surely been a joint effort. , Another thing if TR was a deception who better than to prove that it was, openly, by the very person/or one of the people who had been involved in its drawing up, But no,,,Catesby was forever silenced as was Stillington sentenced to a living death really. WANOVs!

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 11:36:07
ricard1an
Yes I have very interesting. I think, if I remember rightly that Geoff was saying that they, MB and Morton encouraged Hastings and then dropped in it with Richard.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 11:40:14
Paul Trevor Bale
Envoyé de mon iPad

> Le 17 juil. 2017 à 18:24, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :
>
> Some people collect dolls, I collect Richard III books.

You are not alone in this Karen. I've lost count of how many I now have!
On the opposite wall of my library are my collection of French Revolution books!
Paul

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 11:48:42
Paul Trevor Bale
Dear Geoffrey. Such a lovely man and die had Ricardian. He would have been so thrilled when the Kings remains were found.His books are all worth reading.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 17 juil. 2017 à 23:27, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> a écrit :

Agreed Mary..have you read The Deceivers by Geoffrey Richardson. We could also add to the list Eleanor Talbot.


What a nest of vipers.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 11:53:59
b.eileen25
YEp,,,think they did the same with Bucks...loaded the guns and let him fire the bullets..the rest is history. What a lovely lot...

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 12:28:11
b.eileen25
we have lot some good 'uns..Jeffery Potter springs to mind,

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 13:09:25
b.eileen25
*Jeremy

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 13:23:54
ricard1an
He was Paul. I really enjoy his books. Am I right in thinking that he used to have an internet site called Later Medieval Britain. If I remember rightly it was a bit like this forum where you could discuss history with other like minded people.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-07-18 15:03:56
Doug Stamate
Which is why you, and all the others who wade through em, have my admiration (and thanks)! Doug Who finds Latin hard enough; let alone in a medieval hand-writing... Hilary wrote:: Which is why I so respect Ross, Horrox, Kendall, you name 'em. Ploughing through all that writing and Latin. It's bad enough with wills and IPMs. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-18 16:27:16
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I might be mistaken, but was Dorset even in a position to rat Hastings out? Or do you mean Dorset told Shore, who later informed Richard (or someone)? Doug Hilary wrote: FWIW I reckon Hastings did know about the Pre Contract but in his head Edward (IV) his friend was still king. So he remained loyal and alerted Richard to the misdeeds of the Woodvilles. He would never have known that someone would come forward and reveal the Pre Contract, because Edward had convinced him that he'd silenced everyone who knew. So he was in a dreadful place. Once someone came forward about it and someone else 'ratted' that he knew (and my money would be on Dorset via Jane Shore pillow talk) Richard would be devastated, probably as much because Edward had confided in Hastings but hadn't confided in him, as to learn that such a thing existed. So Richard metaphorically thumps Hastings and, when it's too late realises the poor man was between a rock and a hard place. Hence he still permits Hastings to be buried by Edward and takes care of his wife, who is Anne's aunt. That makes the whole episode logical to me. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-18 16:40:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I don't know where I picked up the impression I have, but it seems to me that, at least after George's execution, Richard's attitude toward Edward was, or had, changed. He was still loyal and would obey, but Edward's actions toward George had shown Richard that Edward wasn't necessarily the person he, Richard, had thought him to be. IOW, while the news of the Pre-Contract would still be a shock, Richard wouldn't necessarily be that surprised over Edward having done something such as that. Doug Who does think Hastings got involved with the Woodvilles, but only after the Pre-Contract had been placed before the Council. Hilary wrote: I think it's what you mean by 'guilty' Carol. Yes I think he knew about the Pre Contract but he almost certainly thought he was being loyal to Edward his late king, by not disclosing it. After all, who knew the world would fall in? I can't for a moment think he dealt with the Woodvilles. I think instead it's all about Richard's hurt. Imagine running everywhere for your brother since you were seventeen to prove your loyalty and then you realise he trusted his friend more than you. And you are left with an enormous mess. Poor Hastings, poor Richard. H


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

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

2017-07-18 17:11:17
Doug Stamate
Eileen, That link is very interesting! I have to admit I winced at the lack of objectivity, as motives for something that occurred so long ago can, barring a confession, rarely be more than inferred. I do wonder, though, if some of the author's animus towards Catesby mightn't be, well, snobbery? Here's this person, no better than he should be, merely a member of the gentry and he's messing around with national politics! Of course, I also have to admit that such a view could also be based on a certain lack of objectivity on my part (Unbelievable, isn't it?)! The link you provided in your other post was also interesting. Am I correct in presuming the Catesby's were actually quite prominent, for gentry? (Which, by the way, is where I got the idea above about possible snobbery.) Doug Eileen wrote: This is probably a better link. https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:1m2051&datastreamId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-18 17:11:46
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Yes I agree about wanting the Woodvilles out of the way and don't forget what they were doing was illegal but I just have this feeling that MB is involved somewhere along the line. My old theory that if Henry was to get the throne then Mummy would have to get rid of the old guard including Hastings and that is what happened everyone who stood in the way was dead by August 1485.  Doug here: I seen several television programs and read articles about how the human brain tries to make order out of chaos and will see patterns where there really aren't any. I really wonder if that isn't what happens too often with historical events? This doesn't mean that there necessarily weren't any plans, but rather that we have to be very, very careful we're not seeing something that wasn't there? I hope that makes sense? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-18 17:26:17
Doug Stamate
Eileen wrote: Are we to suppose that Hastings preferred a Tudor on the throne to a Yorkist Richard? Doug here: During April, May and into June, I don't think that thought ever crossed Hastings' mind. For him the choice was between Edward V and Richard III  and regardless of the Pre-Contract, Hastings supported Edward V. It's only later historians who have tried to prematurely put Tudor forward as the one being supported for the throne. Of course, those views had nothing, nothing I tell you! to do with the fact that Tudor eventually did get the throne... I know I have to keep reminding myself but, as far as we know, the knowledge of the Pre-Contract wasn't really public until after the events that led to Hastings' execution. Which, to me anyway, makes Hastings' attempt to retain Edward V on the throne much more understandable. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 19:11:51
Paul Trevor Bale
LMB wasn't Geoff's site but he was a major contributor, and that's how a lot of us Ricardians first met, including à now dear American friend who took us all to Middleham to celebrate her 40th, even got the powers that be to allow her to erect a tent inside the castle, and a local stable to loan her a horse to ride on up to the castle! Magic times. Geoffrey and I would argue the details and theories a lot over a pint, but always in the friendliest way. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 18 juil. 2017 à 14:23, maryfriend@... [] <> a écrit :

He was Paul. I really enjoy his books. Am I right in thinking that he used to have an internet site called Later Medieval Britain. If I remember rightly it was a bit like this forum where you could discuss history with other like minded people.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-18 19:32:22
ricard1an
I think it might have been at Middleham that members of the Worcestershire Branch met Geoff. We used to sell his books on our stall at Tewkesbury.
Mary

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

2017-07-18 21:49:29
ricard1an
I don't think that Hastings considered Tudor as King either. On 13 June 1483 I think that his problem was Buckingham. Maybe he thought that he would be Richard's right hand man not Buckingham and he was fed up with the way Buckingham was being promoted. We have already discussed the fact that Edward Woodville probably did not join Tudor because he thought he was helping Tudor claim the throne but he thought that Tudor would help him to regain Woodville influence over Edward V and get rid of Richard. Hastings may have been spun a different story by MB to the effect that Buckingham wasn't doing a good job supporting Richard and if we can get rid of him you could be Richard's right hand man and who better than E5's father's best friend and supporter. Or she could have said that Buckingham was aiming for the throne and was planning to murder Richard and the boys, while Buckingham was telling Richard that Hastings was going to attack him at the Council meeting. I don't think that Hastings would have wanted Richard to have become King instead of E5 but at that time the pre-contract had not been disclosed so he maybe wouldn't have considered that at all, even if he knew about the pre-contract. Just some suggestions about what might have happened
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 09:53:31
Hilary Jones
No I don't think he plotted against Richard; he'd helped him earlier. He had a knowledge of the Pre Contract and had not disclosed it. That on its own was treason. Incidentally, if Stillington had known all that time why didn't Richard punish him too? The deathbed confession scenario is really the only one that precludes that. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 19:13
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"I think it's what you mean by 'guilty' Carol. Yes I think he knew about the Pre Contract but he almost certainly thought he was being loyal to Edward his late king, by not disclosing it. After all, who knew the world would fall in? I can't for a moment think he dealt with the Woodvilles. I think instead it's all about Richard's hurt. Imagine running everywhere for your brother since you were seventeen to prove your loyalty and then you realise he trusted his friend more than you. And you are left with an enormous mess. Poor Hastings, poor Richard."

Carol responds:

So you do think that Hastings plotted against Richard's life, but not with the Woodvilles? Otherwise, Richard is guilty of murder (as opposed to ordering a legal execution for treason).

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 10:12:54
Hilary Jones
Sorry I'm still catching up and I haven't yet read the William article Eileen.
I re-watched the Lucy Worsley 'Fib' programme last night and something else struck me.
We keep talking about all these folk, Catesby, Hastings, Lovell, to name but a few, jostling for power after Richard came to the throne. But what power was there to have? It was the Tudors who took on 'advisers' (Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecil) and gave them power. Plantagenets didn't do that. They had friends - Edward/Hastings, Richard/Lovell, but when, even from Croyland, do you read of these people telling kings what to do? Perhaps the only one was Warwick, very early in Edward's reign but he was family - and look what happened to him. The only people Plantagenet kings ever trusted with any sort of power were family, and notice people responded by writing to 'family' too. So York wrote to John De La Pole, Coventry, in earlier times to the eight year old Prince of Wales (not Uncle Rivers who clearly answered the letters). And the only real delegated power was Edward to Richard, and in the chaos of the summer of 1483 Richard to Buckingham (family again) who was running round like a demented spin doctor. Naturally that delegation didn't last very long. In fact the only time Hastings took matters into his own hands (helping Margaret from Calais) he got slapped down like a child.
So I think these people would know there was no real power. Real power lay with the High Sheriffs (would could muster, but rarely afford to pay), the clergy (who had a different master) and the king, who had his hands on the Exchequer. Yes they might get a fancy title, a share in attainted lands, the key to a castle, even the Tower of London, but they would never have legislative or executive power. As for persuasion, well probably most of the strong women around were better at that. In fact Richard had all the promise of a reformer and the folk he would have turned to are much more likely to be the ones, like Erasmus, who HT found crushingly boring. What a different world it could have been. HBTW I think Lucy Worsley should be compulsory viewing for anyone interested in Richard.
From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 19:49
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Eileen wrote:

"In the meantime I posted a very good article in the files: Catesby article by D Williams. "

Carol responds:

Thanks, Eileen. But, again, we have a reliance on More. I would also take issue with the Croyland Chronicler's statement (quoted in the article) that Richard "hardly ever dared offer any opposition" to the opinions of Catesby and Ratcliffe. And I wonder where Williams got the idea that John Foster (one of Hastings's associates implicated in the treason plot) was "persuaded" to give up a stewardship (soon awarded to Catesby) "under sinister threats of intimidation, and, indeed actual starvation." That doesn't sound like Richard III (or behavior he would countenance) to me. The source he cites, "Regista Johannis Whethamstede," is for the quotation that follows (the Bishop of St. Albans's remark about Catesby being a great counselor of Richard's), not the starvation/intimidation allegation.

Sorry, but I'm very leery of any source that cites More (or fails to recognize Croyland's anti-Richard bias).

BTW, I don't doubt that Catesby had some connection with Titulus Regius and possibly knowledge of the Edward/Eleanor marriage (in itself sufficient reason for HT to want him dead--he also imprisoned Stillington but' like Richard, scrupled to execute a priest). I just don't think we have sufficient contemporary or near/contemporary evidence to convict him of framing Hastings (who, in my view, probably was not innocent in any case).

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 10:15:09
Hilary Jones
Doug says you should patent that phrase. The net keeps getting bigger.H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 22:50
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Agree Hilary re Hastings..and yet should we note that his step daughter Cicely Bonville had a Wydeville Husband. What a nest of vipers.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 10:20:27
Hilary Jones
I think he could well have been involved or overseen it. And if he was, then no doubt he and Stillington had long conversations about the Talbots. Although I don't go with Hancock's theory, there's no denying that the Catesbies had known the Talbots and Beauchamps and indeed Clarence for a very long time. And what, I wonder, did they know about Morton and lots of HT's new ministers, like Daubeny, who all operated out of the SW? Some of that could have been quite inconvenient I would have thought. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017, 10:30
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Thanks Hilary..I'm interested in reading anything I can about CAtesby and Hastings at this moment. CAtesby especially.
I had another thought about CAtesby getting the chop, My first thought was HT was too slippery to trust someone who betrayed their associates/King...but also the reason might have also been that CAtesby was involved in the drawing up of TR ..it would have surely been a joint effort. , Another thing if TR was a deception who better than to prove that it was, openly, by the very person/or one of the people who had been involved in its drawing up, But no,,,Catesby was forever silenced as was Stillington sentenced to a living death really. WANOVs!

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 10:23:51
Hilary Jones
I think it's a great little book. One thing Geoff says is that Morton was quite an amicable fellow, the sort that if you were in a predicament (as Hastings was) you might confide in. And he would of course 'advise' you, like a spider guiding a fly into a trap. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017, 11:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Yes I have very interesting. I think, if I remember rightly that Geoff was saying that they, MB and Morton encouraged Hastings and then dropped in it with Richard.
Mary

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

2017-07-19 10:27:19
Hilary Jones
Sorry Doug, I meant the other way round. Hastings had once told Jane Shore and she told Dorset - whom she'd moved on to and was at one point looking the morepowerful. Dorset would love to rat on Hastings. It's all about those Grey versus Hastings lands in Leicestershire - isn't it always about land, or sheep? I've always thought the Jane Shore 'penance' thing very odd. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017, 16:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary, I might be mistaken, but was Dorset even in a position to rat Hastings out? Or do you mean Dorset told Shore, who later informed Richard (or someone)? Doug Hilary wrote: FWIW I reckon Hastings did know about the Pre Contract but in his head Edward (IV) his friend was still king. So he remained loyal and alerted Richard to the misdeeds of the Woodvilles. He would never have known that someone would come forward and reveal the Pre Contract, because Edward had convinced him that he'd silenced everyone who knew. So he was in a dreadful place. Once someone came forward about it and someone else 'ratted' that he knew (and my money would be on Dorset via Jane Shore pillow talk) Richard would be devastated, probably as much because Edward had confided in Hastings but hadn't confided in him, as to learn that such a thing existed. So Richard metaphorically thumps Hastings and, when it's too late realises the poor man was between a rock and a hard place. Hence he still permits Hastings to be buried by Edward and takes care of his wife, who is Anne's aunt. That makes the whole episode logical to me. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-19 10:35:24
Hilary Jones
Sorry but not for one moment would Hastings get involved with the Woodvilles (i.e. Greys) Doug. You really do need at some point (that's given you'll ever have a spare moment) to look at all the things that went on between the two families. I said before it was like Robin Hood. It was; ambushes in the forest, brawls in the streets of Leicester, trashing boatsheds at Henley on Thames, even during HT's reign. In fact it was the Montagues and Capulets in the Midlands.
In mitigation for Hastings I think we tend to forget he was also bereaved. One tends to believe that relatives mourn more than friends, but that's not necessarily true. Hastings had spent virtually his whole life with Edward, Richard for some time had had a life of his own, and as you say, could have been drifting further apart. It must have been hard for Hastings to let Edward go. No doubt for some time in his head he was still Edward's man? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017, 16:41
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary, I don't know where I picked up the impression I have, but it seems to me that, at least after George's execution, Richard's attitude toward Edward was, or had, changed. He was still loyal and would obey, but Edward's actions toward George had shown Richard that Edward wasn't necessarily the person he, Richard, had thought him to be. IOW, while the news of the Pre-Contract would still be a shock, Richard wouldn't necessarily be that surprised over Edward having done something such as that. Doug Who does think Hastings got involved with the Woodvilles, but only after the Pre-Contract had been placed before the Council. Hilary wrote: I think it's what you mean by 'guilty' Carol. Yes I think he knew about the Pre Contract but he almost certainly thought he was being loyal to Edward his late king, by not disclosing it. After all, who knew the world would fall in? I can't for a moment think he dealt with the Woodvilles. I think instead it's all about Richard's hurt. Imagine running everywhere for your brother since you were seventeen to prove your loyalty and then you realise he trusted his friend more than you. And you are left with an enormous mess. Poor Hastings, poor Richard. H


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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Ric

2017-07-19 10:51:05
Hilary Jones
I don't have to do the vellum, Doug. And remember those days when libraries closed after the working day and at weekends. No I really respect anyone who did research before the digital age. And all those librarians/archivists who kept telling you to 'shush!! HPhew I think I've caught up!

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 18 July 2017, 15:06
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Which is why you, and all the others who wade through em, have my admiration (and thanks)! Doug Who finds Latin hard enough; let alone in a medieval hand-writing... Hilary wrote:: Which is why I so respect Ross, Horrox, Kendall, you name 'em. Ploughing through all that writing and Latin. It's bad enough with wills and IPMs. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 18:56:22
justcarol67



Eileen wrote:

"Most books/articles covering our subject i.e. Richard and his contemporaries 'cite' More."

Carol responds:

That's unfortunate given that much of More is fiction. Any story that he originates should be disregarded, whether it's Catesby, strawberries, Richard's arm withered from birth, or Richard sitting on the privy as a "secret page" tells him that Sir James Tyrell is lying on his doorstep waiting to do his bidding (which turns out to be murdering the "princes"). He starts out with what is either a deliberate falsehood signaling that the whole "history" is a tissue of lies or an egregious error (Edward's age at death stated with apparent precision in years, months, and days, but wrong by more than thirteen years. He could easily have consulted sources for that detail--and probably did. And, of course, he never published the "history" and never finished it, probably because he knew it wasn't true (but also because he hated Henry VII and knew him to be the real tyrant).

Your Roskell article is interesting and contains some valuable information (and the author at least says "if this is true" regarding More's account of the supposed framing of Hastings), but he is not exactly objective. He speaks of Richard's "usurpation," of the "butchery" at Pontefract (the execution of Rivers et al.), and Richard's supposed desire to divorce Anne. He also seems to view Colyngbourne as an innocent victim. In other words, he's a traditionalist who seems to take his view of Richard and his reign straight from Croyland, whose bias seems invisible to a great many historians.

I question every aspect of the Richard III myth, including the Catesby "betrayal" and the "innocent" Hastings. And I question anyone who says "there is no special reason why More's details about minor personages involved in {Richard's "usurpation"] should be open to suspicion," as Roskell states on p. 147. More was five years old at the time, and any details he obtained about these "minor personages" would have come from Morton, who, being Richard's enemy and involved in plots against him from 1483 onward, had every reason to lie.

As I said earlier, I'm not trying to argue with you or convince you to like Catesby (though he probably was not as bad as his cowardly behavior after Bosworth makes him look), only to state my reasons for questioning the tradition that he betrayed an innocent Hastings. I seriously doubt that Richard was afraid of him, as Croyland alleges; I am pretty sure that Richard respected his considerable abilities and that Catesby served him well as a lawyer, however badly he failed as a soldier. Not being a lifelong friend of King Richard, we can perhaps not expect him to continue to support him--or rather, the Yorkist or anti-Tudor cause (as Lovell, Lincoln, Humphrey Stafford, and others did) after Richard's death, especially as he faced the executioner's axe. BTW, he didn't specifically repudiate Richard, he only lamented that the Stanleys (one of whom had supported Richard's accession and served him as Lord High Constable) had not rescued him.

Anyway, Annette Carson calls More's choice of Catesby as the "go-between" who reveals Hastings's plans to Richard "a hindsight-driven mistake" since Catesby was still a newcomer and not yet Richard's "intimate adviser." As she puts it, "The idea that Richard would send an untried functionary to discuss a topic of such sensitivity is almost as laughable as the idea that Hastings would unburden himself of such a dangerously negative response [to the question of support for Richard's kingship] to that same functionary" ("Maligned King," p. 85). She also says (same page) that Richard would have been foolish "to send personal messages around town revealing dangerous ambitions for the throne to persons whose support was questionable."

My apologies for the length of this message. Hope I haven't put anyone to sleep!

Carol


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 19:23:58
justcarol67


Eileen wrote:

"Are we to believe that Hastings would prefer a Tudor to a Yorkist Richard on the throne? Really?"

Carol responds:

Not sure what you're responding to, but plotting with the Woodvilles would certainly have been about Edward V and getting rid of Richard either as a Protector/regent with (in their view) too many powers (as outlined by Russell in a speech he never gave) or as a would-be king. (Everything depends on how soon Hastings began plotting and whether the implications of the Edward/Eleanor marriage had yet led the council to conclude that Richard was the rightful king.)

Rotherham and Oliver King would certainly have supported Edward V. Morton would have pretended to, concealing any hopes he had for that obscure "Lancastrian" exile in Brittany.

You're certainly right that Hastings would never have supported Tudor. No supporter of Edward V would have done so before the rumors that the "Princes" were dead--and Hastings, had he lived and remained loyal to Richard, would almost certainly have known their fate.

Carol




Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 19:46:26
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"What I would say with regard to Hastings is that he would never have gone over to the Woodvilles."

Carol responds;

On the other hand, who would have thought that Warwick and MoA would become allies? Sometimes, enemies join together to overthrow a common enemy before turning against each other again.

That seems to me much more believable than Richard ordering the arrest of various people (Morton among them) and the execution of one of them without evidence, merely having Hastings killed in a temper tantrum over his failure to disclose evidence about the Talbot marriage (which is certainly not the crime of the other conspirators). Nor were they meeting in each others' houses merely to deny Edward's marriage to Eleanor.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 20:02:03
justcarol67
Eileen wrote:

"I cannot move on from my suspicion that Hastings might have been set up. Those secret meetings might well have been to sound him out in some way and when he didn't play ball then he had to go."

Carol responds:

But the secret meetings (assuming that Mancini is correct) involved him and the other conspirators, notably Morton and Rotherham. If he *was*set up, I suspect it was by Morton (who later, apparently, set up Buckingham).

Eileen wrote:

"Maybe he dithered. MAybe he was involved in a plot to assassinate Richard maybe he wasn't...how ironic if all,this time we have been mistaken about him."

Carol responds:

Ironic, indeed! Half of Richard's reputation as a man ruthless enough to order the murders of his nephews rests on the executions of supposedly innocent men--Hastings, Rivers, Vaughn, and Grey. If we assume that Richard in his role as Constable/Protector was acting legally and that the treason plots were real, the Protectorate ceases to provide evidence of tyranny and simply becomes a matter of Richard doing his job, protecting both the kingdom and himself.

Eileen wrote:

"Why was Catesby relying on the Stanleys to save him? What had he done that he would have thought they would and was so shocked when they didn't? THe problem is as ever that the victors write history and this has never been truer than in the events leading up to Richard's betrayal,and death and the usurpation of Henry Tudor. Just think how different Bosworth might have turned out if Hastings had still been around...oh yes and Clarence too, but that's another story. There is still just so much we don't know. The human shredders made sure of that."

Carol responds:

All I know is that Thomas Stanley (as opposed to Sir William) had at one point been a key supporter of King Richard, just as Catesby was. Maybe he didn't realize that self-interest (or self-preservation) would prevent Lord Thomas from saving a man who had almost certainly been deeply involved with Titulus Regius.

But, yes, the victors writing history and destroying documents make it very difficult for all of us who are trying to find the truth.

If Clarence had still been around (unattainted), he, not Richard, would have become the candidate for king on the revelation of the Edward/Eleanor marriage. Would Edward have appointed George as Protector, though? Imagine the sparks that would have flown if he appointed Richard, and George,as the older brother, resented that preferment.

What I wish is that Warwick and his brother Montague had never been given cause (by Edward!) to rebel against Edward. Imagine if Richard had had them, and the troops the could command, at his side at Bosworth. He would almost certainly have won. And imagine if Edward had executed the Earl of Oxford. There might never have been a Bosworth!

As you say, there is still so much we don't know. I only hope there are eager young scholars in England who know both medieval Latin and fifteenth-century English, as well as fully grasping the culture and mindset of the time, who can re-analyze the extant sources without preconceptions and find new ones using modern research methods. I understand that some old sources are becoming newly available through the efforts of the RIII Society.

If only historians and biographers could realize that hindsight, far from being 20/20, creates preconceptions and distorts sources (such as Mancini and Croyland) so that they can't be taken at face value! What we need is more records, ideally the records of Richard's council as Protector for starters.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 20:14:26
justcarol67
Eileen wrote:

"I had another thought about CAtesby getting the chop, My first thought was HT was too slippery to trust someone who betrayed their associates/King...but also the reason might have also been that CAtesby was involved in the drawing up of TR ..it would have surely been a joint effort. , Another thing if TR was a deception who better than to prove that it was, openly, by the very person/or one of the people who had been involved in its drawing up, But no,,,Catesby was forever silenced as was Stillington sentenced to a living death really."

Carol responds:

But Catesby didn't betray Richard. He just hoped that the Stanleys (for whatever reason) would convince Henry not to execute him.

But, yes. Exactly. TR has to be the reason why Catesby, alone of Richard's important counselors, was executed (and Stillington was not only arrested but prevented from speaking before Henry's Parliament about TR).

If you haven't already read it, JAH's "Eleanor: The Secret Queen" discusses Catesby extensively in that connection.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 20:51:27
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"No I don't think he plotted against Richard; he'd helped him earlier. He had a knowledge of the Pre Contract and had not disclosed it. That on its own was treason. Incidentally, if Stillington had known all that time why didn't Richard punish him too? The deathbed confession scenario is really the only one that precludes that."

Carol responds:

Neither Stillington nor Hastings had any reason to disclose the Precontract before Edward's death as it did not affect E 4's claim--and Stillington had already had a taste of prison as a deterrent to mentioning it prematurely. Richard would hardly have held that against him. Besides, he's the one who revealed it, so it would have made no sense to punish him.

As for Hastings, I don't think concealing it is sufficient cause for executing him. Richard must have feared for his life. If the Calais garrison had attacked the Tower, there would have been great bloodshed even if Richard survived.

And given that others were arrested at the same time Hastings was executed (the same people who were evidently meeting in each others' houses), there must have been a plot against Richard either as Protector or as prospective king. I agree with Mary that, as early as it was, it probably had more to do with *control* of Edward V than with any intent by Richard to replace him. He was probably too concerned with exploring the truth of Stillington's revelation and considering its implications to be seriously considering seizing the throne, especially if doing so would involve violence. IMO, it was the petition of the Three Estates that decided him, giving him the chance to accept the throne legally without seizing it. I suspect he also considered, and discussed with the council, the possibility of keeping E V on the throne, far from Woodville influence (as Russell describes in his undelivered sermon), with Richard's powers as Protector prolonged and increased, or even putting Edward of Warwick on the throne, again with Richard as Protector or regent). None of those possibilities would have been palatable to Hastings, who would have wanted to exercise as much control over Edward as possible without having to defer to Richard.

At any rate, I don't buy either an innocent Hastings or a raving, murderous Richard abusing his power for spite. There was some sort of conspiracy, and Hastings must have been in on it. Whether Richard should have put him in very secure custody in the Tower rather than executing him is another matter. And, of course, he never should have put the wily Morton in Buckingham's custody.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-19 21:37:01
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"We keep talking about all these folk, Catesby, Hastings, Lovell, to name but a few, jostling for power after Richard came to the throne. But what power was there to have? It was the Tudors who took on 'advisers' (Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecil) and gave them power. Plantagenets didn't do that."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. What was Colyngbourne (who, of course, didn't die for a rhyme) getting at when he wrote that the Cat, the Rat, and "Lovell our dog" rule all England "under an Hog"? Catesby was a lawyer, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House of Commons for a single Parliament; Ratcliffe, Richard's long-time friend and sometime messenger, was made High Sheriff of Westmorland but was primarily a knight or soldier; Lovell was also a personal friend and became Lord Chamberlain. The idea that any of them "ruled England" is absurd, as is Croyland's assertion that Richard decided not to marry Elizabeth of York because Ratcliffe and Catesby were afraid it would cause rebellions in the North. (We know that he never considered any such idea and publicly denied the rumors because they weren't true, not because his powerful counselors had forced him to change his mind.)

Croyland, by the way, had already ceased to be a credible witness by that time in Richard's reign if he ever was one.

Stanley as Constable had more power than the three put together but I'm not sure that he ever used it. John of Lincoln and Percy would have had power in the North, and Russell as Chancellor held a very important office, but there's no question that Richard was in charge at the national level. As for the High Sheriffs, what power they had would have been strictly limited and localized.

BTW, I suspect that the reason HT gave his advisors power was that he had no legal or government experience and no idea how to rule a country. Richard, on the other hand, had extensive experience--and a reputation for justice as well. The idea that he needed far less experienced men to rule for him is absurd. I do think he should have had a Council of the Midlands as well as a Council of the North, perhaps with Viscount Lovell in charge, but HT got in the way of his plans for a just and efficient government.

BTW, we hardly hear about Norfolk, but he would have been one man whose age and experience Richard could rely on. We never hear about his role as a member of Richard's counsel, but I imagine it was as important in its way as Bishop Russell's. But listening to senior advisers is not the same as relying on them to do your work for you, and neither of these men is named by either Colyngbourne or Croyland as in any way "ruling" England.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-20 08:40:30
Hilary Jones
Exactly Carol. I agree with all you say. I think we sometimes forget that Stanley (Thomas) is always in the background in quite a powerful position, not to rule, but to stir.
And you're right about HT - how would he know? So he'd need to keep all his supporting gentry on side. By the end of the sixteenth century the Tudors had built up the most enormous supporting aristocracy, some taken from the very lowest ranks of the gentry. H




From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 19 July 2017, 21:37
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Hilary wrote:

"We keep talking about all these folk, Catesby, Hastings, Lovell, to name but a few, jostling for power after Richard came to the throne. But what power was there to have? It was the Tudors who took on 'advisers' (Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecil) and gave them power. Plantagenets didn't do that."

Carol responds:

I agree completely. What was Colyngbourne (who, of course, didn't die for a rhyme) getting at when he wrote that the Cat, the Rat, and "Lovell our dog" rule all England "under an Hog"? Catesby was a lawyer, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Speaker of the House of Commons for a single Parliament; Ratcliffe, Richard's long-time friend and sometime messenger, was made High Sheriff of Westmorland but was primarily a knight or soldier; Lovell was also a personal friend and became Lord Chamberlain. The idea that any of them "ruled England" is absurd, as is Croyland's assertion that Richard decided not to marry Elizabeth of York because Ratcliffe and Catesby were afraid it would cause rebellions in the North. (We know that he never considered any such idea and publicly denied the rumors because they weren't true, not because his powerful counselors had forced him to change his mind.)

Croyland, by the way, had already ceased to be a credible witness by that time in Richard's reign if he ever was one.

Stanley as Constable had more power than the three put together but I'm not sure that he ever used it. John of Lincoln and Percy would have had power in the North, and Russell as Chancellor held a very important office, but there's no question that Richard was in charge at the national level. As for the High Sheriffs, what power they had would have been strictly limited and localized.

BTW, I suspect that the reason HT gave his advisors power was that he had no legal or government experience and no idea how to rule a country. Richard, on the other hand, had extensive experience--and a reputation for justice as well. The idea that he needed far less experienced men to rule for him is absurd. I do think he should have had a Council of the Midlands as well as a Council of the North, perhaps with Viscount Lovell in charge, but HT got in the way of his plans for a just and efficient government.

BTW, we hardly hear about Norfolk, but he would have been one man whose age and experience Richard could rely on. We never hear about his role as a member of Richard's counsel, but I imagine it was as important in its way as Bishop Russell's. But listening to senior advisers is not the same as relying on them to do your work for you, and neither of these men is named by either Colyngbourne or Croyland as in any way "ruling" England.

Carol



Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-21 22:08:29
Durose David
Eileen and Carol,
Acting as Devil's Advocate on the matter of Catesby's execution, particularly in relation to the cause. The Roskill article, which I had read before some time ago, gives two reasons why Catesby expected harsh treatment if Richard lost at Bosworth.
He quotes the fact that he had become very unpopular in the area of Leicestershire around the battlefield and that he expected to be blamed by Elizabeth of York for the executions of her relatives in 1483.
Although he mentions his negotiation of the truce with Brittany, he does not mention that this included the proposed capture of Henry Tudor and his 'rendition' to Richard, which would give Henry a big reason to single him out.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-22 09:18:16
b.eileen25
Interesting David. But it does not explain however why he appeared to be expecting help from the Stanleys which never came, what had he done to have expected this help and been disappointed when it didn't arrive?

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-22 09:38:37
ricard1an
Exactly Eileen. What had Catesby done to cause Richard to execute Rivers and co? They were definitely plotting something before Richard came south and I would think at that time Richard would hardly know Catesby. I think, and it is only my opinion, that during the time between the beginning of May and June 13th Richard had been shown evidence that proved that the Woodvilles were plotting and according to his letter to York, had plotted to the detriment of the Yorkist family. HT dated his reign from the day before Bosworth in order to accuse Richard's supporters of treason. That was a particularly shameful thing to do especially as he did not have a claim to the throne, which is clearly shown when he had to claim the throne by conquest.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-22 10:27:59
Hilary Jones
David, why would Catesby be unpopular in Leicestershire, he was married to a Zouche and John Zouche fought for Richard? This sounds a bit like our friend from Rutland who deserted Richard and 'took' HT to a proposed battle site. Richard was never unpopular in Leicestershire, in fact there's the passed-down story that the harvests were bad for years after the defeat of 'Good King Dick'. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017, 9:38
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Exactly Eileen. What had Catesby done to cause Richard to execute Rivers and co? They were definitely plotting something before Richard came south and I would think at that time Richard would hardly know Catesby. I think, and it is only my opinion, that during the time between the beginning of May and June 13th Richard had been shown evidence that proved that the Woodvilles were plotting and according to his letter to York, had plotted to the detriment of the Yorkist family. HT dated his reign from the day before Bosworth in order to accuse Richard's supporters of treason. That was a particularly shameful thing to do especially as he did not have a claim to the throne, which is clearly shown when he had to claim the throne by conquest.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-22 11:26:14
ricard1an
Also why wouldn't a negotiation with Brittany include the capture of HT he was planning on committing treason.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Stillington and C

2017-07-22 16:40:14
justcarol67



David wrote:

"Acting as Devil's Advocate on the matter of Catesby's execution, particularly in relation to the cause. The Roskill article, which I had read before some time ago, gives two reasons why Catesby expected harsh treatment if Richard lost at Bosworth. He quotes the fact that he had become very unpopular in the area of Leicestershire around the battlefield and that he expected to be blamed by Elizabeth of York for the executions of her relatives in 1483."

Carol responds:

I'm not sure that Catesby's unpopularity is a "fact." Nor do I see any reason why he would be blamed for the execution of Rivers et al. (Croyland uses that same probably imaginary fear as a reason why Catesby (and Ratcliffe, who only delivered a message to Northumberland and had no part in the decision to execute them) would try to dissuade Richard from a move he never intended to make, that is, marrying EoY.

Roskill relies on the very unreliable More and the increasingly unreliable Croyland for his "facts." I remain convinced that TR was the main reason that Catesby was singled out (and Stillington arrested).

I'm not sure, but I think that the reputations of most of Richard's associates (Norfolk and Brackenbury excepted) were blackened along with his, possibly because HT (or Morton) couldn't have the "tyrant" and "usurper" that HT supplanted supported by good men. He did try to cultivate some of the survivors--Lincoln (a failure) and Surrey (whose sons were in HT's custody), but those who died supporting Richard (other than Surrey's father, Norfolk) could be safely slandered as traitors and worse. (I wonder why Brackenbury almost alone was still considered a good man even by Sir Thomas More.)

Carol



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

2017-07-22 17:57:54
Doug Stamate
Eileen, Perhaps it had something to do with how MB was treated in June of 1483? Possibly Catesby interceded in her favor with Richard? Which would go a long way in explaining why Richard only put her in her husband's care. If I'm not mistaken, and I easily could be, wasn't it only after Buckingham's Rebellion that any of Richard's actions concerning MB were punitive (fines, etc.).? IOW, when it was in his power, Catesby had done a favor for Stanley and it certainly wasn't Catesby's fault that MB kept on meddling! Doug Eileen wrote: Interesting David. But it does not explain however why he appeared to be expecting help from the Stanleys which never came, what had he done to have expected this help and been disappointed when it didn't arrive?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Richard III Society Forum] Re: St

2017-07-22 18:18:01
Doug Stamate
Mary, If, as I and others suspect, Richard was supposed to be ambushed at Stony Stratford, that ambush  at the very least  implied taking Richard into custody or, more likely, Richard's death. Now, the circumstances being what they were, and the fact the plot was foiled, quite likely led Richard to place into custody, rather than execute those who'd planned the ambush. Circumstances after the discovery and foiling in June of the second plot against Richard were very different. The only aim of the June plot was Richard's death, which was why Hastings was executed for his participation in that plot. I would think it likely that it occurred to Richard that, if even Hastings could be gotten at, then there was little reason to show any mercy to Rivers & Co. for what they'd attempted in April. Of course, it's also very possible that, depending on how strictly Rivers & Co. were guarded, they were also aware of, if not directly involved, in the June plot. If so, and in that case, there'd be a charge of treason from April against the Constable of England, to which could be added a charge of misprision of treason in May/June against the-now Protector. Doug Mary wrote: Exactly Eileen. What had Catesby done to cause Richard to execute Rivers and co? They were definitely plotting something before Richard came south and I would think at that time Richard would hardly know Catesby. I think, and it is only my opinion, that during the time between the beginning of May and June 13th Richard had been shown evidence that proved that the Woodvilles were plotting and according to his letter to York, had plotted to the detriment of the Yorkist family. HT dated his reign from the day before Bosworth in order to accuse Richard's supporters of treason. That was a particularly shameful thing to do especially as he did not have a claim to the throne, which is clearly shown when he had to claim the throne by conquest.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-22 18:41:27
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Also why wouldn't a negotiation with Brittany include the capture of HT he was planning on committing treason.  Doug here: Because the Bretons, as apparently many historians since, knew HT was to be the savior of England and it would be silly, if not down-right evil, to try and prevent that from occurring? Doug Who hopes my snark is recognized for what it is!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2017-07-24 09:17:55
Hilary Jones
FWIW the Catesbys had been the Fortnum and Mason lawyers to the aristocracy for 3 or 4 generations. Firstly, why would they risk that lucatrive 'contract' just to be patted on the head by Richard, and kings are notoriously bad payers. Secondly, along the way they would have gathered a lot of 'secrets'. On wonders what WC knew that HT was desperate should not get out. I doubt it was about illegitimate princes; more likely something much closer to home, though I haven't a clue what. Perhaps it was something to do with MB and the Stanleys, hence his appeal to them? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2017, 17:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Stillington and Clarence - closer than we thought?

Eileen, Perhaps it had something to do with how MB was treated in June of 1483? Possibly Catesby interceded in her favor with Richard? Which would go a long way in explaining why Richard only put her in her husband's care. If I'm not mistaken, and I easily could be, wasn't it only after Buckingham's Rebellion that any of Richard's actions concerning MB were punitive (fines, etc.).? IOW, when it was in his power, Catesby had done a favor for Stanley and it certainly wasn't Catesby's fault that MB kept on meddling! Doug Eileen wrote: Interesting David. But it does not explain however why he appeared to be expecting help from the Stanleys which never came, what had he done to have expected this help and been disappointed when it didn't arrive?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Richard III
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.