Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

   It is claimed by some that the nobility of England all abandoned Richard at Bosworth by electing not to come. Did he call them all? Or did he think he had enough troops?

Karen wrote:

"It is claimed by some that the nobility of England all abandoned Richard at Bosworth by electing not to come. Did he call them all? Or did he think he had enough troops?"

Carol responds:

To begin with, there wasn't much left of the nobility by this time, and of those who were left, many were too old or too young to fight, but quite a few were present at Bosworth. From the Tudor point of view but not the Yorkist, HT was Earl of Richmond, a title he could have reclaimed legally if he had returned to England peacefully at Edward's request/command. Similarly, Jasper Tudor had been Earl of Pembroke but Edward IV took the title from him after Tewkesbury in 1461.

Of the few nobles with military experience, one, the Earl of Oxford, was a diehard Lancastrian fighting for HT; two, the Duke of Norfolk and his son, the Earl of Surrey, fought for Richard; two others, the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Stanley, were supposed to fight for Richard but sat out the battle (Stanley may actually have been absent). Two who were definitely on Richard's side, Viscount Lovell and the Earl of Lincoln, apparently were on business for Richard and weren't present at the battle, but neither had real battle experience in any case, being too young to have fought at Tewkesbury or Barnet. Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, fought for Richard, as did a number of lords. (Just two lords fought for Henry.) There should be a list in our Files if you're curious.

The Earl of Lincoln's father, the Duke of Suffolk, definitely sat out the battle. Despite being married to Richard's very Yorkist sister Elizabeth (mother of the de la Pole claimants to the throne), he had been a Lancastrian in his youth but had fought for Edward at Barnet and Tewkesbury and had been one of Richard's supporters at the time of his accession. Later, he accepted Tudor (in contrast to his son, John). He was of fighting age, just 42 at the time of Bosworth, but I don't know whether he chose not to fight or Richard chose not to summon him. Maybe he had expected a place on Richard's council and felt short-changed, but having fought twice for York, he would not have been trusted by HT. Safest just to sit it out and support the winner.

The Earl of Essex was the nephew of Elizabeth Woodville and probably would have fought for HT but may still have been too young to fight.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure others can add more.

Carol

Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to.
Mary

Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
 

    Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug   Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to.  Mary  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I also read that it was £3000, a very large amount and too much to pay the garrison but would keep a prince in luxury for quite some time. Maybe it was intended for both.
Mary
Who wishes we could go back in time and see exactly what did happen.

Karen looking at my list most did come and many were over 60. Have you got some examples? What's more important is how few turned out for HT apart from seasoned traitors and Welshmen gathered along the way. True his Northern affinity shone, but they were not the only ones. You wouldn't expect many from the South West, for example, which had long been the old Lancastrian territory of the Beaufort Dukes of Somerset. In fact most of the gang of traitors came from there. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Those who sat out Bosworth

It is claimed by some that the nobility of England all abandoned Richard at Bosworth by electing not to come. Did he call them all? Or did he think he had enough troops?

I've got lists for both sides compiled as far as possible from existing lists and ballads - and from people who I stumble upon in my research who've been omitted, but definitely died that day - most of them Yorkshiremen for Richard.This statement is obviously from a book Karen, sounds a bit like Skidmore?I think, as Carol says, there actually weren't many 'nobles' left - most had been wiped out by the Black Death, the French Wars and the earlier battles of the WOTR. The Tudors actually created a new nobility based on money by making the gentry baronets, something which that giant fib that HT reduced the power of the barons totally contradicts. H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 19:26
Subject: Re: Those who sat out Bosworth

Karen wrote:

"It is claimed by some that the nobility of England all abandoned Richard at Bosworth by electing not to come. Did he call them all? Or did he think he had enough troops?"

Carol responds:

To begin with, there wasn't much left of the nobility by this time, and of those who were left, many were too old or too young to fight, but quite a few were present at Bosworth. From the Tudor point of view but not the Yorkist, HT was Earl of Richmond, a title he could have reclaimed legally if he had returned to England peacefully at Edward's request/command. Similarly, Jasper Tudor had been Earl of Pembroke but Edward IV took the title from him after Tewkesbury in 1461.

Of the few nobles with military experience, one, the Earl of Oxford, was a diehard Lancastrian fighting for HT; two, the Duke of Norfolk and his son, the Earl of Surrey, fought for Richard; two others, the Earl of Northumberland and Lord Stanley, were supposed to fight for Richard but sat out the battle (Stanley may actually have been absent). Two who were definitely on Richard's side, Viscount Lovell and the Earl of Lincoln, apparently were on business for Richard and weren't present at the battle, but neither had real battle experience in any case, being too young to have fought at Tewkesbury or Barnet. Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland, fought for Richard, as did a number of lords. (Just two lords fought for Henry.) There should be a list in our Files if you're curious.

The Earl of Lincoln's father, the Duke of Suffolk, definitely sat out the battle. Despite being married to Richard's very Yorkist sister Elizabeth (mother of the de la Pole claimants to the throne), he had been a Lancastrian in his youth but had fought for Edward at Barnet and Tewkesbury and had been one of Richard's supporters at the time of his accession. Later, he accepted Tudor (in contrast to his son, John). He was of fighting age, just 42 at the time of Bosworth, but I don't know whether he chose not to fight or Richard chose not to summon him. Maybe he had expected a place on Richard's council and felt short-changed, but having fought twice for York, he would not have been trusted by HT. Safest just to sit it out and support the winner.

The Earl of Essex was the nephew of Elizabeth Woodville and probably would have fought for HT but may still have been too young to fight.

That's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure others can add more.

Carol

No. I have no list. I am reading. There is this claim that of 28 ,,nobles 22 refused the call. It's an article. I suspected it was not true. But this forum is the only source of facts I can really get to. 
On Jul 10, 2017 5:05 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Karen looking at my list most did come and many were over 60. Have you got some examples? What's more important is how few turned out for HT apart from seasoned traitors and Welshmen gathered along the way. True his Northern affinity shone, but they were not the only ones. You wouldn't expect many from the South West, for example, which had long been the old Lancastrian territory of the Beaufort Dukes of Somerset. In fact most of the gang of traitors came from there. H

From: "Karen O karenoder4@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2017, 12:40
Subject: Those who sat out Bosworth

     It is claimed by some that the nobility of England all abandoned Richard at Bosworth by electing not to come. Did he call them all? Or did he think he had enough troops?

The only battle I can think of where everyone who was anybody turned up was Towton.
There were powerful motives for not showing up (on either side) unless you were either part of the ruling clique or alternatively utterly dispossessed. In the latter case, you had nothing to lose.
As has been said, by 1485 the "House of Lords" was pretty small anyway. About 55 members in total if I recall correctly. There have always been the equivalent of parliamentary "backwoodsmen" who aren't that bothered about national affairs and only turn up occasionally unless unusually provoked.
I think it's fair to say that the "big players" showed up at Bosworth, the problem for Richard being that two of the three were Stanley and Northumberland, although in the latter case his role is rather opaque.
Lovell (and Audley) had been sent to the south coast and may not have had time to get to Bosworth. This is almost certainly true of others who were making their way from the north country.
Brian W.

AJ, To say that's interesting is an understatement! It appears that, rather than send cash, perhaps there wasn't that much on hand, Richard authorized Sir James to take the King's share of the staple in wool, up to three thousands pounds worth, sell it and use the money for purposes already imparted to Sir James, that for oure use and proufitte bit. Of course, it still doesn't answer the Why. If the money was to be used for Richard of Shrewsbury's upkeep, that works out to 300 pounds per annum for a decade; surely quite a bit more than necessary to maintain him comfortably? After all, he was only a Royal bastard, not a Royal. Which is why I tend to think that the money, or at least most of it, was destined to insure that the authorities didn't fall behind in paying the troops garrisoning Calais. Sir James was placed in charge because Richard knew he could trust him and the money would go for its' intended purpose/s. As I mentioned earlier, and presuming it was known at that time that Anne's illness was mortal, then it's also a possibility that some of those funds were intended for use in negotiating a marriage for Richard, and his oldest niece. Doug AJ wrote: There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

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

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
 

There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@kconline.com [] <@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

    Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug   Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to.  Mary  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Continued...
The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that.
When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin.
So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them.
So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back.
Hope this makes sense.
Regards David
On 11 Jul 2017 12:53 a.m., "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:

There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Ah, and the money could have stayed on the continent if the popular notion is correct that it was meant to support a prince or two abroad.
A J
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 7:17 PM, daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:
 

Continued... 
The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. 
When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. 
So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. 
So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. 
Hope this makes sense. 
Regards David 
On 11 Jul 2017 12:53 a.m., "daviddurose2000@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad. 
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple. 
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf. 
Firstly 
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

    Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug   Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to.  Mary  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes £300 could buy you a London suburb! I'd agree with Doug, keeping the garrison on side was very important, given that a lot of them hired themselves out as mercenaries. They were highly prized fighters. Didn't want them doing that to HT. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 10 July 2017, 17:34
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Those who sat out Bosworth

AJ, To say that's interesting is an understatement! It appears that, rather than send cash, perhaps there wasn't that much on hand, Richard authorized Sir James to take the King's share of the staple in wool, up to three thousands pounds worth, sell it and use the money for purposes already imparted to Sir James, that for oure use and proufitte bit. Of course, it still doesn't answer the Why. If the money was to be used for Richard of Shrewsbury's upkeep, that works out to 300 pounds per annum for a decade; surely quite a bit more than necessary to maintain him comfortably? After all, he was only a Royal bastard, not a Royal. Which is why I tend to think that the money, or at least most of it, was destined to insure that the authorities didn't fall behind in paying the troops garrisoning Calais. Sir James was placed in charge because Richard knew he could trust him and the money would go for its' intended purpose/s. As I mentioned earlier, and presuming it was known at that time that Anne's illness was mortal, then it's also a possibility that some of those funds were intended for use in negotiating a marriage for Richard, and his oldest niece. Doug AJ wrote: There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

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

Yes absolutely David. As I've said in another post these people were immensely rich and normally supported the Yorkist regime. After Richard's death Calais (and the cover of the merchant route) continued to be used by agents as a way of raising money and support for insurrection against HT. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 0:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary,
I mention Browne because he is known to have lent money to successive kings including Henry VII. Also, 1485 is the year that Richard gave him permission to build an almshouse. So they may have been mercenary but also concerned with their legacies - caring for the poor and building churches.
http://www.lilfordhall.com/ElmesFamily/William-Browne.asp

Judging from the date of the commission, being after Henry and his fellow exiles had escaped Richard's plot with Landais, Richard and his council were probably realizing the folly of that plot and that now Henry was in France, it was only a matter of time before the French made use of the exiles. He would need to defend himself and fill up the coffers to pay for his army.
Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 9:57, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<e@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Yes absolutely David. As I've said in another post these people were immensely rich and normally supported the Yorkist regime. After Richard's death Calais (and the cover of the merchant route) continued to be used by agents as a way of raising money and support for insurrection against HT. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 0:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 9:57, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Yes absolutely David. As I've said in another post these people were immensely rich and normally supported the Yorkist regime. After Richard's death Calais (and the cover of the merchant route) continued to be used by agents as a way of raising money and support for insurrection against HT. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 0:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Yes £300 could buy you a London suburb! I'd agree with Doug, keeping the garrison on side was very important, given that a lot of them hired themselves out as mercenaries. They were highly prized fighters. Didn't want them doing that to HT Doug here: I can't recall where I read it, but I do recollect reading that the costs of garrisoning Calais and its castles was close to the regular yearly income of the Crown. And the sum mentioned as being sent to Tyrrell, 3,000 pounds, was mentioned as being the Crown's yearly income, or close to it. Which likely means that money was sent to ensure the loyalty of the hired troops in the Calais garrison and not intended for the support of Richard of Shrewsbury. Or the possible Portuguese marriage/s. Oh, well... Wouldn't moving the Staple to Calais, besides locating it in one convenient spot, also have been a boost to the local economy; thus, hopefully, reducing direct outlays from the Exchequer? Does anyone have any more information about this? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share Hope this makes sense. Regards David On 11 Jul 2017 12:53 a.m., "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad. The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple. Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000, Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf. Firstly On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. 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.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

(I accidently hit Send before I completed the message. This is the correct version) David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share, although a bit early. Doug Who again apologizes for having accidently hit Send prematurely.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug,
I think on this occasion you are wrong. It may surprise you to know that the Merchants of the Staple Company still exits and even has a website. Below is the history section. It says very explicitly that the Merchants used to pay for and manage the garrison.
History | History |

So the amounts of money generated by the trade, despite collecting and paying taxes, was such that the merchants could pay for their own garrison and still become incredibly rich.
The instructions match the method described of lending money against forfeited goods so closely that it is safe to assume that this is what is occurring. If the king had a private arrangement for the merchant to retain future taxes as a means of repayment may be the case but we would be guessing.
Without knowing the figures and the small details we don't know if there could possibly be £3000 worth of wool available to sell at any one time, if the debt was to the Company, individual merchants or one person.
We don't know how Richard knew that there would be £3000 in cash available in Calais, perhaps there was some early negotiations.
Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 18:33, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [<> wrote:

(I accidently hit Send before I completed the message. This is the correct version) David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share, although a bit early. Doug Who again apologizes for having accidently hit Send prematurely.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thanks David I know the Elmes/Browne family. He was in good company Henry VI, Edward IV and Richard borrowed from merchants throughout their reigns - as of course did HT. Hence the rise in the 'moneyed' aristocracy. The old brigade queued up to marry their daughters. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 16:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary,
I mention Browne because he is known to have lent money to successive kings including Henry VII. Also, 1485 is the year that Richard gave him permission to build an almshouse. So they may have been mercenary but also concerned with their legacies - caring for the poor and building churches.
http://www.lilfordhall.com/ElmesFamily/William-Browne.asp

Judging from the date of the commission, being after Henry and his fellow exiles had escaped Richard's plot with Landais, Richard and his council were probably realizing the folly of that plot and that now Henry was in France, it was only a matter of time before the French made use of the exiles. He would need to defend himself and fill up the coffers to pay for his army.
Regards
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 9:57, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<e@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Yes absolutely David. As I've said in another post these people were immensely rich and normally supported the Yorkist regime. After Richard's death Calais (and the cover of the merchant route) continued to be used by agents as a way of raising money and support for insurrection against HT. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 0:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 9:57, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Yes absolutely David. As I've said in another post these people were immensely rich and normally supported the Yorkist regime. After Richard's death Calais (and the cover of the merchant route) continued to be used by agents as a way of raising money and support for insurrection against HT. H

From: "daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 0:54
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad.
The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple.
Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000,Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf.
Firstly
On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. Mary
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I've consulted my good friend Ross's 'Edward IV' on this.
Edward had come to an agreement with the Staple that they should pay directly for the upkeep of the garrison in Calais and collect the money from customs duties on their wool exports to do this. It was the Act of Retainer 1466. This was an effort to stop the numerous insurrections because of unpaid wages. In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more.
Does that make sense? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 18:29
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share Hope this makes sense. Regards David On 11 Jul 2017 12:53 a.m., "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad. The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple. Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000, Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf. Firstly On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. 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.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

See my reply David. I would add to it that, given that Tyrell was engaged on other business for Richard and Mountjoy was too ill to be in control it could well be that Richard was making sure that they were selling to capacity to maintain the garrison and were also helping him out before anyone else got a foot in. They were after all serious businessmen, equivalent to the oil barons of the 20th century. Incidentally quite a lot of our key players were Merchants of the Staple - the Stillington family, the Twynyhos, and of course several London Lord Mayors who would raise to great prominence under HT. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 21:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Doug,
I think on this occasion you are wrong. It may surprise you to know that the Merchants of the Staple Company still exits and even has a website. Below is the history section. It says very explicitly that the Merchants used to pay for and manage the garrison.
History | History |
So the amounts of money generated by the trade, despite collecting and paying taxes, was such that the merchants could pay for their own garrison and still become incredibly rich.
The instructions match the method described of lending money against forfeited goods so closely that it is safe to assume that this is what is occurring. If the king had a private arrangement for the merchant to retain future taxes as a means of repayment may be the case but we would be guessing.
Without knowing the figures and the small details we don't know if there could possibly be £3000 worth of wool available to sell at any one time, if the debt was to the Company, individual merchants or one person.
We don't know how Richard knew that there would be £3000 in cash available in Calais, perhaps there was some early negotiations.
Kind regardsDavid


Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017 at 18:33, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [<> wrote: (I accidently hit Send before I completed the message. This is the correct version) David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share, although a bit early. Doug Who again apologizes for having accidently hit Send prematurely.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Incidentally the Blounts were Lancastrians. Sir John's brother died at Bosworth fighting for HT, his brother William at Barnet. And guess what, one William Twynyho MP was his nephew by marriage? He was a bit young to be in ill health - 35 to 40, though he did die the following October. Perhaps Richard detected a rat? H

From: "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 10:14
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I've consulted my good friend Ross's 'Edward IV' on this.
Edward had come to an agreement with the Staple that they should pay directly for the upkeep of the garrison in Calais and collect the money from customs duties on their wool exports to do this. It was the Act of Retainer 1466. This was an effort to stop the numerous insurrections because of unpaid wages. In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more.
Does that make sense? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 11 July 2017, 18:29
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

David wrote: The rich merchants used to fund the garrison of Calais, so the transaction is unlikely to be connected to that. When they lent money, it was against forfeited goods. This was the probably to avoid actually seeming to lend money - which may have been a sin. So the sacks of wool were probably notional, possibly forfeited by / confiscated from the same individual that bought them. So the commission actually says Borrow £3000 by confiscating wool and allowing the merchant('s ) to buy it back. Doug here: I have to disagree with the way you've written that first sentence above. Unless by fund you mean pay taxes on the wool the merchants bought and sold? Because the king, by law, collected a tax on every sack of wool that was exported. The Staple, however, wasn't, as far as I know, considered part of the Crown's regular income. That consisted of rents the king received from properties he owned, fees for certain transactions, and fines levied as a result of legal actions. To me it appears that Richard is telling Sir James to, well, anticipate, the monarch's tax on the sale of sacks of wool by confiscating the number of sacks equal to 3,000 pounds in value and sell them directly, rather than await sales and collect the staple then. In short, Richard was anticipating his income from the tax raised by the Staple. To some, such an action might be considered confiscation, but more likely was looked on Richard taking his share Hope this makes sense. Regards David On 11 Jul 2017 12:53 a.m., "daviddurose2000@... []" <> wrote:
A J, Thanks for sharing the actual text of Richard's commission to Tyrell. I think I know what is going on. It had always seemed odd to me that at a time when the kingdom was under threat Richard was sending money abroad. The solution is that he was not transmitting money, but raising it. He was borrowing money from the merchants of the staple. Receive of (from) the merchants sacks of wool up to a limit of £3000, Sell the wool and keep the proceeds on my behalf. Firstly On 9 Jul 2017 9:44 p.m., "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <> wrote:
There's this transaction involving Tyrell and the sum of 3,000 pounds, complicated by something to do with wool and the Staple of Calais. What to make of it? I certainly don't know...

Sir James Tirelle Richard by the grace of god king of England and of Fraunce and lord of Irland To oure trusty and Righte welbeloved Counsaillor and knighte for oure body Sir James Tyrelle and to oure welbeloved William Bondeman and to eithre of them greting . We Trusting in youre wisedomes and discrecion have ordeyned and appointed you iountly and severelly to Receyve for us and in oure name of the merchantes of oure Staple at Calais . asmany Sakkes of Wolle as shalle ammounte to the some of thre thousand poundes sterling . and the same Wolle to selle and utter for oure use and proufitte . holding to us as ferme and stable whatsoever ye and either of you iountly and severelly shall doo in and about the premisses . by vertue and auctorite of thise oure lettres signed with oure hand . whiche we wol to be unto you and either of you sufficient warrant in that behalf . Yeven etc at Londone the xxti day of Januere The secund yere of oure Reigne
[British Library Harleian Manuscript 433; Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond.Volume 2. Second Register of Richard III. 1980.; p 191]

A J
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 3:30 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
Mary, I believe Tyrrell had been sent to Guisnes (sp?) with a very large sum of money in, I think, April. Some believe the money was to provide for Richard of Shrewsbury, but my personal opinion is that the money was to be used to ensure the soldiery of Guisnes/Calais were properly paid, thus preventing Tudor and the French from buying them. literally, over to Tudor's side. There's also a possibility that some of those funds were destined for expenditures connected with the marriages of Richard and his niece. Doug Also James Tyrrell and Edward Brampton were away on business for Richard too. It must have been important business, well Brampton was trying to arrange the Portuguese marriages and who knows what Tyrrell was up to. 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.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Also we mustn't forget that Edward Woodville, when he was fleeing the country, had taken a lot of money from the treasury and if I remember correctly from a ship and taken it to Brittany to the Tudor usurper. Would Richard have known that there was going to be an invasion in January 1485, I think he probably did and he was probably getting short of money so would need to raise some.
Mary

Exactly he was borrowing £1k or £2k from individuals, which of course is what kings do when levying money for war. And of course Edward's big pension had gone well before his death. The money raised from taxes alone was never very great. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 11:26
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Also we mustn't forget that Edward Woodville, when he was fleeing the country, had taken a lot of money from the treasury and if I remember correctly from a ship and taken it to Brittany to the Tudor usurper. Would Richard have known that there was going to be an invasion in January 1485, I think he probably did and he was probably getting short of money so would need to raise some.
Mary

In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more."

Carol responds:

Could the money have had anything to do with the treason of John Blount's brother, James, who arranged the escape of the Earl of Oxford from Hammes?

Carol

Hilary, Your post made perfect sense, but I went googling anyway and found this: https://books.google.com/books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=act+of+retainer+1466&source=bl&ots=MK2QLWMjGV&sig=hgaO4Zp1NgrTUiBo1bizcWTFm74&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW9LC8p4TVAhUL8IMKHQsxDYgQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=act%20of%20retainer%201466&f=false So it appears to be a matter of semantics. If I understand the link correctly, the usual process was that the soldiers were paid by the merchants, with the merchants then being repaid by the king from what he received from the Staple. What's happening in this instance, I think, is that Richard isn't waiting for the merchants to pay to the soldiers, and then repaying the merchants but, rather, is authorizing Tyrrell to do so directly. Cutting out the middle-man, so to speak. Not to mention ensuring the soldiers' pay is up-to-date... What I found very interesting was that, for an eight year period under Henry, Duke of Buckingham the wage bill submitted by him was 19,395 pounds, or 2,425 pounds and some odd pence per annum for the period between 1442 and 1450. For the six year period between 1450 and 1456, Edmund, Duke of Somerset submitted a wage bill for 22985 pounds, or 3,664 pounds and some odd pence per annum. Which leads me to believe Sir James was to ensure the garrisons were, at least paid up-to-date. Doug

Hilary wrote: I've consulted my good friend Ross's 'Edward IV' on this. Edward had come to an agreement with the Staple that they should pay directly for the upkeep of the garrison in Calais and collect the money from customs duties on their wool exports to do this. It was the Act of Retainer 1466. This was an effort to stop the numerous insurrections because of unpaid wages. In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more. Does that make sense? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

If I was Richard I certainly wouldn't trust the Blounts who were Lancastrians through and through - and yes James did die at Bosworth fighting for HT. Perhaps Sir John was being nudged out of the way, or rather Tyrell's mission ensured he didn't subvert monies? H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 18:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais


In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more."

Carol responds:

Could the money have had anything to do with the treason of John Blount's brother, James, who arranged the escape of the Earl of Oxford from Hammes?

Carol

David, Actually, we both may be right! See: https://books.google.com/books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=act+of+retainer+1466&source=bl&ots=MK2QLWOjDY&sig=ECiZsfZ9qwBGPsouGDCy2RqnnbM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwsJLproTVAhWmx4MKHXC_CC4Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=act%20of%20retainer%201466&f=false So you're correct in saying that the merchants paid the garrison/s, and I'm correct in saying the King paid for the troops out of his cut of the Staple. Doug Doug, I think on this occasion you are wrong. It may surprise you to know that the Merchants of the Staple Company still exits and even has a website. Below is the history section. It says very explicitly that the Merchants used to pay for and manage the garrison. History | History |

So the amounts of money generated by the trade, despite collecting and paying taxes, was such that the merchants could pay for their own garrison and still become incredibly rich. The instructions match the method described of lending money against forfeited goods so closely that it is safe to assume that this is what is occurring. If the king had a private arrangement for the merchant to retain future taxes as a means of repayment may be the case but we would be guessing. Without knowing the figures and the small details we don't know if there could possibly be £3000 worth of wool available to sell at any one time, if the debt was to the Company, individual merchants or one person. We don't know how Richard knew that there would be £3000 in cash available in Calais, perhaps there was some early negotiations. Kind regards David
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, If Richard wasn't certain about the loyalties of the commander/s, then it definitely made sense for him to make arrangements ensuring the troops were paid  and not by a Lancastrian-leaning commander. Doug Hilary wrote: Incidentally the Blounts were Lancastrians. Sir John's brother died at Bosworth fighting for HT, his brother William at Barnet. And guess what, one William Twynyho MP was his nephew by marriage? He was a bit young to be in ill health - 35 to 40, though he did die the following October. Perhaps Richard detected a rat? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes. H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 7:35 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, If Richard wasn't certain about the loyalties of the commander/s, then it definitely made sense for him to make arrangements ensuring the troops were paid  and not by a Lancastrian-leaning commander. Doug Hilary wrote: Incidentally the Blounts were Lancastrians. Sir John's brother died at Bosworth fighting for HT, his brother William at Barnet. And guess what, one William Twynyho MP was his nephew by marriage? He was a bit young to be in ill health - 35 to 40, though he did die the following October. Perhaps Richard detected a rat? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

What other evidence might be sought to support the conclusion that this was about soldiers and garrisons? Are there any surviving accounts of payments that could be consulted?

A J

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes.  H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 7:35 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

      Hilary, If Richard wasn't certain about the loyalties of the commander/s, then it definitely made sense for him to make arrangements ensuring the troops were paid  and not by a Lancastrian-leaning commander. Doug Hilary wrote: Incidentally the Blounts were Lancastrians. Sir John's brother died at Bosworth fighting for HT, his brother William at Barnet. And guess what, one William Twynyho MP was his nephew by marriage? He was a bit young to be in ill health - 35 to 40, though he did die the following October. Perhaps Richard detected a rat? H  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

There are accounts about the money borrowed by Richard at the time and about the income raised from taxes which was insufficient to support a war effort. See Horrox and Ross. He certainly had no surplus to sure up illegitimate 'Princes'. Higher priorities I would have thought like securing the kingdom?
And Blount's supremacy in Calais was a real risk. Just my view :). H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 7:48 pm, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

What other evidence might be sought to support the conclusion that this was about soldiers and garrisons? Are there any surviving accounts of payments that could be consulted?

A J

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes. H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 7:35 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary, If Richard wasn't certain about the loyalties of the commander/s, then it definitely made sense for him to make arrangements ensuring the troops were paid  and not by a Lancastrian-leaning commander. Doug Hilary wrote: Incidentally the Blounts were Lancastrians. Sir John's brother died at Bosworth fighting for HT, his brother William at Barnet. And guess what, one William Twynyho MP was his nephew by marriage? He was a bit young to be in ill health - 35 to 40, though he did die the following October. Perhaps Richard detected a rat? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

AJ, Here's the link I found: https://books.google.com/books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=retainer+act+1466&source=bl&ots=MK2QLWRcDX&sig=zhM21DaEe14dJwXSSQgTpzY1wJk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNrKKxt4TVAhXo5oMKHY20CWUQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=retainer%20act%201466&f=false From the contents it appears it cost the Duke of Buckingham just under 3,000 pounds per annum for wages for the eight years he served as commander of the Calais garrisons and it cost the Duke of Somerset just over 3,000 pounds a year for the six years he served in that capacity. Add to the above Hilary's posts concerning the partisan leanings of the Calais commander in 1485 and I really think it's safe to infer that the most likely purpose for the 3,000 pounds Sir James was to collect, and distribute, was to ensure the pay of the troops of the garrison was up-to-date. I have no idea of how to be more certain. Possibly, since their pay usually originated from the merchants' profits from wool sales, a search through the records of the Staple? Doug AJ wrote: What other evidence might be sought to support the conclusion that this was about soldiers and garrisons? Are there any surviving accounts of payments that could be consulted?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes. H Doug here: A trifecta! With you being the referee, that is. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Well I could be wrong :). And so could we all. But who would spend 3k on a juvenile when the country was at risk?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 8:24 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes. H Doug here: A trifecta! With you being the referee, that is. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thanks Doug, I'll be taking a look at it. Somewhere I have seen an article that demonstrated that the income (of the realm? king?) increased under King Richard. But typically I laid it aside to fully digest later and have now lost track of it to the point that I can't even remember whether it was what we might consider the government's income, the king's personal income, or what. It was long enough ago too that I haven't a clue where I saw it, other than it might have been an academic historical journal, or something that was part of a symposium. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the Ricardian.

A J

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:13 PM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
 

      AJ, Here's the link I found: https://books.google.com/ books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65& lpg=PA65&dq=retainer+act+1466& source=bl&ots=MK2QLWRcDX&sig= zhM21DaEe14dJwXSSQgTpzY1wJk& hl=en&sa=X&ved= 0ahUKEwjNrKKxt4TVAhXo5oMKHY20C WUQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q= retainer%20act%201466&f=false   From the contents it appears it cost the Duke of Buckingham just under 3,000 pounds per annum for wages for the eight years he served as commander of the Calais garrisons and it cost the Duke of Somerset just over 3,000 pounds a year for the six years he served in that capacity. Add to the above Hilary's posts concerning the partisan leanings of the Calais commander in 1485 and I really think it's safe to infer that the most likely purpose for the 3,000 pounds Sir James was to collect, and distribute, was to ensure the pay of the troops of the garrison was up-to-date. I have no idea of how to be more certain. Possibly, since their pay usually originated from the merchants' profits from wool sales, a search through the records of the Staple? Doug   AJ wrote: What other evidence might be sought to support the conclusion that this was about soldiers and garrisons? Are there any surviving accounts of payments that could be consulted?        
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

But seriously I am no expert and am open to arguments. Evidence changes all perspectives so who knows? That's why we never get bored with being on here. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 8:27 pm, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Well I could be wrong :). And so could we all. But who would spend 3k on a juvenile when the country was at risk?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017, 8:24 pm, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Yes Doug. I think you, Carol and David are all right in their own way. One thing is clear this is about soldiers and garrisons and funding, not princes. H Doug here: A trifecta! With you being the referee, that is. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Well I could be wrong :). And so could we all. But who would spend 3k on a juvenile when the country was at risk? Doug here: I know there were complaints about various kings misspending funds meant for military use, but most of those charges were brought because battles, and land, were lost, not because the monarch was using the money for something else entirely. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 21:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary wrote: Well I could be wrong :). And so could we all. But who would spend 3k on a juvenile when the country was at risk? Doug here: I know there were complaints about various kings misspending funds meant for military use, but most of those charges were brought because battles, and land, were lost, not because the monarch was using the money for something else entirely. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Or the merchants went on paying for the garrison out of custom duties, but Richard put a bit of extra money (probably borrowed) in to buy wool to sell so that on this occasion he could take the taxes on that? I suppose it was a sort of back-handed way of earning interest on what he had borrowed. And he of course might well have used this to support the garrison if needed but it wasn't tied to only that use as it would have been if it was just given to the merchants. Does that make sense? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 19:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

David, Actually, we both may be right! See: https://books.google.com/books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=act+of+retainer+1466&source=bl&ots=MK2QLWOjDY&sig=ECiZsfZ9qwBGPsouGDCy2RqnnbM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwsJLproTVAhWmx4MKHXC_CC4Q6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=act%20of%20retainer%201466&f=false So you're correct in saying that the merchants paid the garrison/s, and I'm correct in saying the King paid for the troops out of his cut of the Staple. Doug Doug, I think on this occasion you are wrong. It may surprise you to know that the Merchants of the Staple Company still exits and even has a website. Below is the history section. It says very explicitly that the Merchants used to pay for and manage the garrison. History | History | So the amounts of money generated by the trade, despite collecting and paying taxes, was such that the merchants could pay for their own garrison and still become incredibly rich. The instructions match the method described of lending money against forfeited goods so closely that it is safe to assume that this is what is occurring. If the king had a private arrangement for the merchant to retain future taxes as a means of repayment may be the case but we would be guessing. Without knowing the figures and the small details we don't know if there could possibly be £3000 worth of wool available to sell at any one time, if the debt was to the Company, individual merchants or one person. We don't know how Richard knew that there would be £3000 in cash available in Calais, perhaps there was some early negotiations. Kind regards David
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sorry, just found this, working backwards.
That is interesting because the cost of the garrison as good as equalled all the taxes collected in England. So if the king paid there would be nothing left for anything else. That is of course unless these two inflated the amount to make money for themselves. We know the Staffords were broke. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 12 July 2017, 19:18
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, Your post made perfect sense, but I went googling anyway and found this: https://books.google.com/books?id=yIthoIVk1lgC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=act+of+retainer+1466&source=bl&ots=MK2QLWMjGV&sig=hgaO4Zp1NgrTUiBo1bizcWTFm74&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW9LC8p4TVAhUL8IMKHQsxDYgQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=act%20of%20retainer%201466&f=false So it appears to be a matter of semantics. If I understand the link correctly, the usual process was that the soldiers were paid by the merchants, with the merchants then being repaid by the king from what he received from the Staple. What's happening in this instance, I think, is that Richard isn't waiting for the merchants to pay to the soldiers, and then repaying the merchants but, rather, is authorizing Tyrrell to do so directly. Cutting out the middle-man, so to speak. Not to mention ensuring the soldiers' pay is up-to-date... What I found very interesting was that, for an eight year period under Henry, Duke of Buckingham the wage bill submitted by him was 19,395 pounds, or 2,425 pounds and some odd pence per annum for the period between 1442 and 1450. For the six year period between 1450 and 1456, Edmund, Duke of Somerset submitted a wage bill for 22985 pounds, or 3,664 pounds and some odd pence per annum. Which leads me to believe Sir James was to ensure the garrisons were, at least paid up-to-date. Doug

Hilary wrote: I've consulted my good friend Ross's 'Edward IV' on this. Edward had come to an agreement with the Staple that they should pay directly for the upkeep of the garrison in Calais and collect the money from customs duties on their wool exports to do this. It was the Act of Retainer 1466. This was an effort to stop the numerous insurrections because of unpaid wages. In January 1485 Tyrell was put in charge of the garrison at Guisnes in place of the ailing John Blount, Lord Mountjoy who was to die in October 1485. When Tyrell took the £3,000 Richard was borrowing money from individual nobles and gentry left and right. What I think he's doing here is a bit like you say Doug, making sure the Staple sell £3,000 worth of wool to raise taxes which would this time unusually go the king; but their other sales would continue to make sure the garrison was paid. So he's probably having a 'flutter' on some of the money others have lent him to raise even more. Does that make sense? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print? Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

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

AJ, FWIW, I seem to recall that, until Parliament began auditing the books anyway, all income was considered to be the King's personal income and it didn't matter whether that income came from rents or taxes. That would be where the idea of the King living on his own (income) likely came from. I think, even at this period, there were two ways for the King to spend money; the Privy Purse, which was used for personal bequests and household expenses, and the Exchequer, which was used for all other expenditures, such as paying soldiers. However, as any expenditures from the Privy Purse eventually came from the Exchequer, it appears using the Privy Purse was more on the order of pocket money for the King; a way of avoiding the bureaucrats at the Treasury, so to speak. Hope you find the article (and it's available online), it sounds interesting! Doug AJ wrote: Thanks Doug, I'll be taking a look at it. Somewhere I have seen an article that demonstrated that the income (of the realm? king?) increased under King Richard. But typically I laid it aside to fully digest later and have now lost track of it to the point that I can't even remember whether it was what we might consider the government's income, the king's personal income, or what. It was long enough ago too that I haven't a clue where I saw it, other than it might have been an academic historical journal, or something that was part of a symposium. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the Ricardian.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

You can get it on English amazon (or kindle) for quite a reasonable price (about £10 or second hand cheaper). I feared it might be £50! It's my bible because the devil is in the detail. I know Ross disliked Richard but by the time he wrote 'Edward' he'd mellowed and he is I would say the best historian on the period for the time he wrote - things have been discovered since of course.
It's a long detailed chapter on the King's Finances. The £25k I was talking about was from custom duties. The rest of course came from land revenues and wardships which were often not collected efficiently. It cost about £12k a year just to finance the royal household. He gives the example that Margaret's dower cost £41k. You can see why the £10k French pension was so valuable. Before the Act of 1466 the commander of Guisnes ended up paying the garrison himself. In 1468 Blount was still owed £3,400 for wages paid in 1461!
I think you would enjoy reading it all, particularly about coinage, so I do think it's one to shell out on. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:00
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print? Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

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

Hilary, I got the impression that Richard was basically taking his share before he normally did. It looks to me as if the usual method was for the troops to be paid by the merchants out their pockets. Then, once the wool was sold, the king would take his share of the profits and repay the merchants the sums they'd paid to the troops. As an example, I'm the Finance Officer at our local American Legion Post (our version of the British Legion). We don't have a credit card in the Post's name, so if something is ordered on-line, I use my credit card and, once whatever's been ordered arrives, I write a check to myself to cover the costs. I think that's what was happening in this case. So, when Richard wrote that letter authorizing Tyrrell to glom onto 3,000 pounds worth of wool, sell the wool and apply the proceeds to the troops' pay, he was acting more on the lines of what happens today when, say, income tax is taken out of each paycheck you receive and then, at the end of the year, you either pay-in more (ouch!) or receive a refund (yay!). Richard was, in other words, anticipating future income. Nowadays, of course, governments issue bonds, but then... Hilary wrote: Or the merchants went on paying for the garrison out of custom duties, but Richard put a bit of extra money (probably borrowed) in to buy wool to sell so that on this occasion he could take the taxes on that? I suppose it was a sort of back-handed way of earning interest on what he had borrowed. And he of course might well have used this to support the garrison if needed but it wasn't tied to only that use as it would have been if it was just given to the merchants. Does that make sense? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Seems to be available free (full view) on Google Books here in the US.

A J

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

You can get it on English amazon (or kindle) for quite a reasonable price (about £10 or second hand cheaper). I feared it might be £50! It's my bible because the devil is in the detail. I know Ross disliked Richard but by the time he wrote 'Edward' he'd mellowed and he is I would say the best historian on the period for the time he wrote - things have been discovered since of course.
It's a long detailed chapter on the King's Finances. The £25k I was talking about was from custom duties. The rest of course came from land revenues and wardships which were often not collected efficiently. It cost about £12k a year just to finance the royal household. He gives the example that Margaret's dower cost £41k. You can see why the £10k French pension was so valuable. Before the Act of 1466 the commander of Guisnes ended up paying the garrison himself. In 1468 Blount was still owed £3,400 for wages paid in 1461!
I think you would enjoy reading it all, particularly about coinage, so I do think it's one to shell out on. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:00
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

        Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print?   Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H  

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

A J, I googled and found I can get a copy from Barnes & Noble for less the $30, so it looks like I have my birthday present to myself. Thank you for the tip! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I can also recommend Cora L Scofield's biography of Edward IV. It has been reprinted now. She seems to have been a meticulous researcher & modern writers (Hicks, Kleineke, and yes, Ross) refer to her work frequently.

A J

On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 11:13 AM, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
 

    A J, I googled and found I can get a copy from Barnes & Noble for less the $30, so it looks like I have my birthday present to myself. Thank you for the tip! Doug    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, You wrote That is interesting because the costs of the garrison as good as equaled all the taxes collected in England. Actually, it appears that the annual cost of the garrison varied between 2,600 pound per year under Buckingham and 3,600 pounds per year under Somerset, for an annual average of 3,000 pounds. Which represents approximately 12.5% of the annual Royal income, if we include the King's take from the Staple as being part of that 25,000 pounds you mentioned in another post as being the yearly Royal income (when they could get it). What would take the entire yearly Royal income would have been to repay Buckingham and Somerset the sums owed them in their entirety, but I doubt that was ever considered. Perhaps it was because the Staffords hadn't been repaid that they were broke? Or, at least, one of the reasons? It looks to me as if costs of the Calais garrisons average out to 3,000 pounds a year; which very nicely fits with that 3,000 pounds Tyrrell was authorized to collect and spend. Doug Hilary wrote: Sorry, just found this, working backwards. That is interesting because the cost of the garrison as good as equalled all the taxes collected in England. So if the king paid there would be nothing left for anything else. That is of course unless these two inflated the amount to make money for themselves. We know the Staffords were broke. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Was this before or after summer 1483, during which Buckingham rebelled and was subsequently attainted?

From: [mailto: ]
Sent: 13 July 2017 16:53
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary,

You wrote “That is interesting because the costs of the garrison as good as equaled all the taxes collected in England .”

Actually, it appears that the annual cost of the garrison varied between 2,600 pound per year under Buckingham and 3,600 pounds per year under Somerset , for an annual average of 3,000 pounds. Which represents approximately 12.5% of the annual Royal income, if we include the King’s take from the Staple as being part of that 25,000 pounds you mentioned in another post as being the yearly Royal income (when they could get it).

What would take the entire yearly Royal income would have been to repay Buckingham and Somerset the sums owed them in their entirety, but I doubt that was ever considered. Perhaps it was because the Staffords hadn’t been repaid that they were broke? Or, at least, one of the reasons?

It looks to me as if costs of the Calais garrisons average out to 3,000 pounds a year; which very nicely fits with that “3,000 pounds” Tyrrell was authorized to collect and spend.

Doug

Hilary wrote:

“Sorry, just found this, working backwards.

That is interesting because the cost of the garrison as good as equalled all the taxes collected in England . So if the king paid there would be nothing left for anything else. That is of course unless these two inflated the amount to make money for themselves. We know the Staffords were broke. H”

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

There is a question worth asking - how much wool represents £3000 value. I have found an article that states the price was between £6 and £10 depending on quality. So it was very expensive or they were very big sacks. So you would need to find around 400/500 sacks.
But I still think that the sacks may be an artifice to obscure the money lending. If the sacks were all in one place they would represent a significant fire risk.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Stephen 1485. Doug how I see it is this. Richard knows the Staple is covering garrison costs. It hasn't been an issue for some time
However he needs money. He's collected 1k here and there from friends/investors. He sends Tyrell to Calais with 3k to buy wool from the Staple which is then sold to the dastardly foreigners who have to pay custom duties. Tyrell should return with the 3k plus duties so Richard has made interest in modern terms which enhances the 3k and can be used for anything including propping up the garrison if needed. David, thus doesn't have to be done all at once but over time if necessary. It's only like speculating and earning interest without destabilising the garrison or the Staple contribution. H who hates IPhones

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, 10:11 pm, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

There is a question worth asking - how much wool represents £3000 value. I have found an article that states the price was between £6 and £10 depending on quality. So it was very expensive or they were very big sacks. So you would need to find around 400/500 sacks.

But I still think that the sacks may be an artifice to obscure the money lending. If the sacks were all in one place they would represent a significant fire risk.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hi Hilary,
That just seems too complicated if you need to raise cash quickly. Also the Browne family and the Merchants information both say that the method used to lend money was against forfeited goods. This matches perfectly with the instructions to Tyrell. Why risk sending money across the channel in order to try to find a buyer? If the buyers knew he was desperate they might disappear until the price drops - it is all a bit risky.
Tyrell crosses with no money but authority to forfeit £3000 of wool. The merchants buy back their own wool, Tyrell returns with £3000 or pays the garrison according to Richard's instructions. No risk £3000 in the coffers.No need to find alternative buyers. The merchants continue with their business and the King owes them £3000.
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 at 22:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Stephen 1485. Doug how I see it is this. Richard knows the Staple is covering garrison costs. It hasn't been an issue for some

However he needs money. He's collected 1k here and there from friends/investors. He sends Tyrell to Calais with 3k to buy wool from the Staple which is then sold to the dastardly foreigners who have to pay custom duties. Tyrell should return with the 3k plus duties so Richard has made interest in modern terms which enhances the 3k and can be used for anything including propping up the garrison if needed. David, thus doesn't have to be done all at once but over time if necessary. It's only like speculating and earning interest without destabilising the garrison or the Staple contribution. H who hates IPhones

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, 10:11 pm, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

There is a question worth asking - how much wool represents £3000 value. I have found an article that states the price was between £6 and £10 depending on quality. So it was very expensive or they were very big sacks. So you would need to find around 400/500 sacks.

But I still think that the sacks may be an artifice to obscure the money lending. If the sacks were all in one place they would represent a significant fire risk.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

But - they are still lending money, not giving it and monarchs got into a lot of trouble by not being able to repay loans. The Staple are a fickle lot - they quashed the Readeption over the proposed ditching of the Hansa. If Tyrell buys and sells the wool himself and collects the custom duties he doesn't owe anyone. He's made interest for the King on borrowed money and that interest doesn't have to be repaid.
Or there is an alternative scenario where the Staple are actually collecting more than is needed to maintain the garrison and pocketing the surplus. I haven't had time to see whether anyone looked at their accounts. Tyrell gets his £3k of wool from them, sells it and takes the customs money for Richard. That way there's no need to change the Law and upset the Staple, though either way they've lost duty on 3k of goods but not their ongoing right to keep duties for the garrison/themselves.
Either are very shrewd economic moves which make money which doesn't have to be repaid whilst keeping the Staple onside.
I think what we all agree though that it is very unlikely that this money was being supplied to prop up an illegitimate prince, which is I think where it started? H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 22:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hi Hilary,
That just seems too complicated if you need to raise cash quickly. Also the Browne family and the Merchants information both say that the method used to lend money was against forfeited goods. This matches perfectly with the instructions to Tyrell. Why risk sending money across the channel in order to try to find a buyer? If the buyers knew he was desperate they might disappear until the price drops - it is all a bit risky.
Tyrell crosses with no money but authority to forfeit £3000 of wool. The merchants buy back their own wool, Tyrell returns with £3000 or pays the garrison according to Richard's instructions. No risk £3000 in the coffers.No need to find alternative buyers. The merchants continue with their business and the King owes them £3000.
RegardsDavid
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 at 22:32, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: Stephen 1485. Doug how I see it is this. Richard knows the Staple is covering garrison costs. It hasn't been an issue for some
However he needs money. He's collected 1k here and there from friends/investors. He sends Tyrell to Calais with 3k to buy wool from the Staple which is then sold to the dastardly foreigners who have to pay custom duties. Tyrell should return with the 3k plus duties so Richard has made interest in modern terms which enhances the 3k and can be used for anything including propping up the garrison if needed. David, thus doesn't have to be done all at once but over time if necessary. It's only like speculating and earning interest without destabilising the garrison or the Staple contribution. H who hates IPhones

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, July 13, 2017, 10:11 pm, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote: There is a question worth asking - how much wool represents £3000 value. I have found an article that states the price was between £6 and £10 depending on quality. So it was very expensive or they were very big sacks. So you would need to find around 400/500 sacks.
But I still think that the sacks may be an artifice to obscure the money lending. If the sacks were all in one place they would represent a significant fire risk.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

AJ I think it's fair to say it did until Richard had to deal with HT's threatened invasion. He had to purchase and maintain a fleet which was 'enormously expensive' and hard to keep at sea. He had to guess where HT would land and there had been invasion forces in at least six counties during the WOTR. Ross maintains that by the summer of 1485 he was running seriously short of funds (Harl 43, fos. 144v, 151v, 180v) to the extent that he'd had to dismantle his posting system (this is Croyland). And spies, although effective, were also very expensive. Basically, HT's threatened activities were draining the country and, as well as the £3k, by January 1485 Richard was levying money for the payment of troops on the mainland.
AJ/Doug, I'll try to summarise how things worked.
By 1450 Henry VI owed £372k because revenue from taxation had fallen to £24k a year from £90k a year under Henry IV. Edward's Parliament agreed to increased taxes which yielded £93k in total over the ten years between 1461 and 1471 but most of this was swallowed up by dealing with rebellion. All this of course shows how costly war was. Expenditure was as follows per annum:
Royal household £12kAdmin/diplomacy £10kCalais garrison (until 1466) £10kPolicing the marches £3 - 6kEW's household £4.5kRichard/George £4kSo Ross estimates that this came to approximately £50k a year without extraordinary expenditure like dowers and wars
These were paid for by two annual sources
Customs duties £25kRoyal estates and wardships £30k - Edward chased these and took them from the Exchequer into his own handsThe French pension £10k from 1475
To remedy this Edward:
Revalued the coinageBorrowed from alien bankers (£38k up to 1475)Borrowed from Florentines £24kIntroduced the Act of RetainerChased up feudal dues (not always successful)Upped customs revenues to £34k after 1471Introduced clergy taxation £6kAnd a one-off ransom of £86k over 7 years for MOA
By the end of his reign Edward's annual revenue from recurring sources was at least £65k as compared with that of HT £105K in the last year of his reign but finances had been put straight and he died solvent which was more than any English king had done in the last 200 years (Ross). But, as Ross also says, war was terribly expensive and that hit Richard.
Hope this helps. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

AJ, FWIW, I seem to recall that, until Parliament began auditing the books anyway, all income was considered to be the King's personal income and it didn't matter whether that income came from rents or taxes. That would be where the idea of the King living on his own (income) likely came from. I think, even at this period, there were two ways for the King to spend money; the Privy Purse, which was used for personal bequests and household expenses, and the Exchequer, which was used for all other expenditures, such as paying soldiers. However, as any expenditures from the Privy Purse eventually came from the Exchequer, it appears using the Privy Purse was more on the order of pocket money for the King; a way of avoiding the bureaucrats at the Treasury, so to speak. Hope you find the article (and it's available online), it sounds interesting! Doug AJ wrote: Thanks Doug, I'll be taking a look at it. Somewhere I have seen an article that demonstrated that the income (of the realm? king?) increased under King Richard. But typically I laid it aside to fully digest later and have now lost track of it to the point that I can't even remember whether it was what we might consider the government's income, the king's personal income, or what. It was long enough ago too that I haven't a clue where I saw it, other than it might have been an academic historical journal, or something that was part of a symposium. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the Ricardian.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug I think we're both agreeing it was an ingenious way to make extra non-repayable money and quite fast.
I can't seem to get hold of an actual copy of the Act of Retainer. You see Ross implies that the merchants were allowed to keep the customs duties they collected on the wool to pay the garrison, which he says was about £10k a year (see my other email). So what happened if they collected more - did they hang on to it on the assumption that it would cover years when it fell short? Was there regulation that any surplus was immediately passed on to the king and how long would that take? Who 'did the accounts' - we know that elsewhere collectors took ages to chase up stuff and it seems to leave room for a bit of crooked accounting and 'backpocketing' on the part of the Staple. The wool trade was booming at this time because of the various agreements Edward had made in the 1470s so if the money didn't pass through the king first I don't know how you'd make sure he ever got his hands on the surplus. Or did they pass it to the king first and they had to reclaim it? It seems daft that they collect it, pass it to the king in England who then passes it back, surely it would be more efficient to send him the balance? All in the days before electronic banking.
It must just be the way Ross has phrased it and I can't get hold of Lander which is where he took it from.
Sorry to be so obtuse. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:28
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, I got the impression that Richard was basically taking his share before he normally did. It looks to me as if the usual method was for the troops to be paid by the merchants out their pockets. Then, once the wool was sold, the king would take his share of the profits and repay the merchants the sums they'd paid to the troops. As an example, I'm the Finance Officer at our local American Legion Post (our version of the British Legion). We don't have a credit card in the Post's name, so if something is ordered on-line, I use my credit card and, once whatever's been ordered arrives, I write a check to myself to cover the costs. I think that's what was happening in this case. So, when Richard wrote that letter authorizing Tyrrell to glom onto 3,000 pounds worth of wool, sell the wool and apply the proceeds to the troops' pay, he was acting more on the lines of what happens today when, say, income tax is taken out of each paycheck you receive and then, at the end of the year, you either pay-in more (ouch!) or receive a refund (yay!). Richard was, in other words, anticipating future income. Nowadays, of course, governments issue bonds, but then... Hilary wrote: Or the merchants went on paying for the garrison out of custom duties, but Richard put a bit of extra money (probably borrowed) in to buy wool to sell so that on this occasion he could take the taxes on that? I suppose it was a sort of back-handed way of earning interest on what he had borrowed. And he of course might well have used this to support the garrison if needed but it wasn't tied to only that use as it would have been if it was just given to the merchants. Does that make sense? H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

It will keep you going for a fair few months - not a cover to cover read! H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 17:16
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

A J, I googled and found I can get a copy from Barnes & Noble for less the $30, so it looks like I have my birthday present to myself. Thank you for the tip! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Thanks, Hilary.

I can see that this is a topic deserving of some serious study, since I have also read that Edward IV was hemorrhaging financially when he died. We know that his executors refused to administer his estate, and Horrox points out in her Financial Memoranda of the Reign of Edward V that after a very short period, it appears that Gloucester was paying for much of the government.
 
"Richard III inherited an empty treasury and a fairly high level of expenditure. Although Edward IV had succeeded in revolutionizing the funding of the crown, his immediate financial legacy was less comfortable than is sometimes supposed."

How much Edward Woodville's activities contributed to the issue of Edward's estate I don't know.

At any rate, one of the line items in this document (that Horrox supposes from internal evidence was compiled sometime between mid May and June 9th) is

Also it is to be rememberd howe my lord protectour shalle have his repayment of DCCC li which he hathe payde as welle for the kynges most honourable household as othir wise duryng the tyme of his attendaunce abought the  most honourable persone of the kyng oure soverayne lord.

Unfortunately I won't be able to get to it until almost the end of the year.

A J

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

AJ I think it's fair to say it did until Richard had to deal with HT's threatened invasion. He had to purchase and maintain a fleet which was 'enormously expensive' and hard to keep at sea. He had to guess where HT would land and there had been invasion forces in at least six counties during the WOTR. Ross maintains that by the summer of 1485 he was running seriously short of funds (Harl 43, fos. 144v, 151v, 180v) to the extent that he'd had to dismantle his posting system (this is Croyland). And spies, although effective, were also very expensive. Basically, HT's threatened activities were draining the country and, as well as the £3k, by January 1485 Richard  was levying money for the payment of troops on the mainland.
AJ/Doug, I'll try to summarise how things worked.
By 1450 Henry VI owed £372k because revenue from taxation had fallen to £24k a year from £90k a year under Henry IV. Edward's Parliament agreed to increased taxes which yielded £93k in total over the ten years between 1461 and 1471 but most of this was swallowed up by dealing with rebellion. All this of course shows how costly war was. Expenditure was as follows per annum:
Royal household £12kAdmin/diplomacy £10kCalais garrison (until 1466) £10kPolicing the marches £3 - 6kEW's household £4.5kRichard/George £4kSo Ross estimates that this came to approximately £50k a year without extraordinary expenditure like dowers and wars
These were paid for by two annual sources
Customs duties £25kRoyal estates and wardships £30k - Edward chased these and took them from the Exchequer into his own handsThe French pension £10k from 1475
To remedy this Edward:
Revalued the coinageBorrowed from alien bankers (£38k up to 1475)Borrowed from Florentines £24kIntroduced the Act of RetainerChased up feudal dues (not always successful)Upped customs revenues to £34k after 1471Introduced clergy taxation £6kAnd a one-off ransom of £86k over 7 years for MOA
By the end of his reign Edward's annual revenue from recurring sources was at least £65k as compared with that of HT £105K in the last year of his reign but finances had been put straight and he died solvent which was more than any English king had done in the last 200 years (Ross). But, as Ross also says, war was terribly expensive and that hit Richard.
Hope this helps.  H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

        AJ, FWIW, I seem to recall that, until Parliament began auditing the books anyway, all income was considered to be the King's personal income and it didn't matter whether that income came from rents or taxes. That would be where the idea of the King living on his own (income) likely came from. I think, even at this period, there were two ways for the King to spend money; the Privy Purse, which was used for personal bequests and household expenses, and the Exchequer, which was used for all other expenditures, such as paying soldiers. However, as any expenditures from the Privy Purse eventually came from the Exchequer, it appears using the Privy Purse was more on the order of pocket money for the King; a way of avoiding the bureaucrats at the Treasury, so to speak. Hope you find the article (and it's available online), it sounds interesting! Doug   AJ wrote: Thanks Doug, I'll be taking a look at it. Somewhere I have seen an article that demonstrated that the income (of the realm? king?) increased under King Richard. But typically I laid it aside to fully digest later and have now lost track of it to the point that I can't even remember whether it was what we might consider the government's income, the king's personal income, or what. It was long enough ago too that I haven't a clue where I saw it, other than it might have been an academic historical journal, or something that was part of a symposium. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the Ricardian.  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, would I be right in thinking that it was in the merchants interest to keep the garrison at Calais funded because they would be defending them from any piracy that might have happened. It would probably be disastrous to lose a ship.
Mary

So, if I understand this correctly, wicked Uncle Richard is funding young Edward's household out of his own pocket because Edward's mother and Uncle Edward have taken any money that was available?
Mary

Stephen, The period of service for Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham was from approximately 1442 to 1450. I originally posted that Edmund, Duke of Somerset served a six-year term as Captain of Calais but, scrolling further down the preview, it appears he only served from 1451 until 1454. I presumed the Buckingham mentioned was either the father or grandfather of our Buckingham. Doug Stephen wrote:

Was this before or after summer 1483, during which Buckingham rebelled and was subsequently attainted?

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

David, I don't the size of the sacks the wool was stuffed into, but I do know the seat for the Lord Speaker is called the Woolsack (back when the House of Lords was the center of Parliamentary power. I did find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolsack and there are some pictures to the right side showing the Woolsack and if that was the size, then each sack could hold quite a lot. I don't know how many sacks were held at any one time, but I presume they would be stored under conditions that prevented the wool from deteriorating in quality  which would likely also lower any risk from fire. Doug David wrote: There is a question worth asking - how much wool represents £3000 value. I have found an article that states the price was between £6 and £10 depending on quality. So it was very expensive or they were very big sacks. So you would need to find around 400/500 sacks. But I still think that the sacks may be an artifice to obscure the money lending. If the sacks were all in one place they would represent a significant fire risk.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Doug I think we're both agreeing it was an ingenious way to make extra non-repayable money and quite fast. Doug here: Well, except that I think this wasn't a case of Richard trying to make extra cash so much as his anticipating his income from the Staple. I know he got a percentage, but I don't know either his percentage or what it amounted to the amount) or when it was paid into the royal coffers. Hilary concluded: I can't seem to get hold of an actual copy of the Act of Retainer. You see Ross implies that the merchants were allowed to keep the customs duties they collected on the wool to pay the garrison, which he says was about £10k a year (see my other email). So what happened if they collected more - did they hang on to it on the assumption that it would cover years when it fell short? Was there regulation that any surplus was immediately passed on to the king and how long would that take? Who 'did the accounts' - we know that elsewhere collectors took ages to chase up stuff and it seems to leave room for a bit of crooked accounting and 'backpocketing' on the part of the Staple. The wool trade was booming at this time because of the various agreements Edward had made in the 1470s so if the money didn't pass through the king first I don't know how you'd make sure he ever got his hands on the surplus. Or did they pass it to the king first and they had to reclaim it? It seems daft that they collect it, pass it to the king in England who then passes it back, surely it would be more efficient to send him the balance? All in the days before electronic banking. It must just be the way Ross has phrased it and I can't get hold of Lander which is where he took it from. Sorry to be so obtuse. H Doug here: FWIW, I think what's happening is that Richard knows the merchants of the Staple are responsible for paying the costs of the garrison (that's that Act of Retainer you mentioned in another post). The usual procedure is for the merchants to pay the costs of the garrison and then, at some appointed time, present their bills showing what they'd paid for the upkeep of the garrison. Then, and this is where it gets a bit complicated, the amounts disbursed by the merchants for the upkeep of the garrison, would be compared with the amount the King should have received in taxes on all the wool sold during that period. If there was more owing to the King, I suppose it was sent off to London; if the King owed the merchants, then the merchants would probably have some of the tax remitted on the next batch of wool that was sold. In this instance, or so it seems to me, what Richard is doing is getting the tax on the wool sales at once, not waiting for any totting up at the end of the year or whenever. And, as you mentioned, there was a lot of room for hanky-panky and fiddling with the figures before that final total was reached. Then there's the simple point of when were the garrison's various bills (troops' pay, food, weapons, horses) paid by the merchants? I seriously doubt those bills were paid as soon as they came in; more likely those bills were put off for as long as the merchants dared. Which is why Richard wanted Sir James to take 3,000 pounds worth of wool in lieu of any taxes due and before he usually received them. and, Then, or so I think, Sir James was to apply that money to the costs of the garrison, ensuring the troops were paid, etc. rather than wait for the merchants to get around to paying up. Which is one reason the Calais position was so important and needed to be held by someone Richard trusted. Every in-coming sack of wool had to be accounted for and that number compared against every out-going sack of wool in order to ensure the King received the correct amount of tax money on the wool. Which meant, in turn, that trustworthy people had to meet every incoming vessel and check its' cargo. If there were sacks of wool on board, then the exact number of sacks had to be tallied. The same applied when the wool was sold; every sack sold had to be counted, as well as the amount received for that wool, because the King's portion of the Staple depended on how much the wool sold for. By the way, is there any clue about whether that 10,000 pounds represents the total cost of the garrison or the total custom duties? At any rate, that's why I think what Sir James was doing was simply taking the King's share, aka the tax on exported wool, before it had been officially determined just what that amount would be. As you say, this was before electronic banking (or almost any banking as we know it) and the Staple was simply a method of collecting taxes at the point of sales where it was easiest and not wait for those honest, up-right merchants to send in what they owed... Doug Who doesn't think you're obtuse at all  it's taken me a week to work it out this far! And I might still be wrong...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

ÿ Hi, Doug - Don't know if Ross is still in print, but I found my copy via Amazon. You might try "googling" it there. Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:59 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print? Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

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

ÿ Lack of time for thorugh email exam for a couple of days - I'm answering in order - didn't realize Hilary had beaten me to it. Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 8:19 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

You can get it on English amazon (or kindle) for quite a reasonable price (about £10 or second hand cheaper). I feared it might be £50! It's my bible because the devil is in the detail. I know Ross disliked Richard but by the time he wrote 'Edward' he'd mellowed and he is I would say the best historian on the period for the time he wrote - things have been discovered since of course.
It's a long detailed chapter on the King's Finances. The £25k I was talking about was from custom duties. The rest of course came from land revenues and wardships which were often not collected efficiently. It cost about £12k a year just to finance the royal household. He gives the example that Margaret's dower cost £41k. You can see why the £10k French pension was so valuable. Before the Act of 1466 the commander of Guisnes ended up paying the garrison himself. In 1468 Blount was still owed £3,400 for wages paid in 1461!
I think you would enjoy reading it all, particularly about coinage, so I do think it's one to shell out on. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:00
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print? Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

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

That's it, isn't it? I used to say we need 3 lifetimes, it's more like 10. I've got Horrox as well so I'll have a look. What does seem clear is that HT made a good job of causing financial problems in the country he was to take long before he landed. Lovely person, wasn't he? And of course war bleeds a country but Edward was lucky enough to have no war between 1471 and his death. He did well out of MOA didn't he? H

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2017, 14:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Thanks, Hilary.

I can see that this is a topic deserving of some serious study, since I have also read that Edward IV was hemorrhaging financially when he died. We know that his executors refused to administer his estate, and Horrox points out in her Financial Memoranda of the Reign of Edward V that after a very short period, it appears that Gloucester was paying for much of the government.

"Richard III inherited an empty treasury and a fairly high level of expenditure. Although Edward IV had succeeded in revolutionizing the funding of the crown, his immediate financial legacy was less comfortable than is sometimes supposed."

How much Edward Woodville's activities contributed to the issue of Edward's estate I don't know.

At any rate, one of the line items in this document (that Horrox supposes from internal evidence was compiled sometime between mid May and June 9th) is

Also it is to be rememberd howe my lord protectour shalle have his repayment of DCCC li which he hathe payde as welle for the kynges most honourable household as othir wise duryng the tyme of his attendaunce abought the most honourable persone of the kyng oure soverayne lord.

Unfortunately I won't be able to get to it until almost the end of the year.

A J

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
AJ I think it's fair to say it did until Richard had to deal with HT's threatened invasion. He had to purchase and maintain a fleet which was 'enormously expensive' and hard to keep at sea. He had to guess where HT would land and there had been invasion forces in at least six counties during the WOTR. Ross maintains that by the summer of 1485 he was running seriously short of funds (Harl 43, fos. 144v, 151v, 180v) to the extent that he'd had to dismantle his posting system (this is Croyland). And spies, although effective, were also very expensive. Basically, HT's threatened activities were draining the country and, as well as the £3k, by January 1485 Richard was levying money for the payment of troops on the mainland.
AJ/Doug, I'll try to summarise how things worked.
By 1450 Henry VI owed £372k because revenue from taxation had fallen to £24k a year from £90k a year under Henry IV. Edward's Parliament agreed to increased taxes which yielded £93k in total over the ten years between 1461 and 1471 but most of this was swallowed up by dealing with rebellion. All this of course shows how costly war was. Expenditure was as follows per annum:
Royal household £12kAdmin/diplomacy £10kCalais garrison (until 1466) £10kPolicing the marches £3 - 6kEW's household £4.5kRichard/George £4kSo Ross estimates that this came to approximately £50k a year without extraordinary expenditure like dowers and wars
These were paid for by two annual sources
Customs duties £25kRoyal estates and wardships £30k - Edward chased these and took them from the Exchequer into his own handsThe French pension £10k from 1475
To remedy this Edward:
Revalued the coinageBorrowed from alien bankers (£38k up to 1475)Borrowed from Florentines £24kIntroduced the Act of RetainerChased up feudal dues (not always successful)Upped customs revenues to £34k after 1471Introduced clergy taxation £6kAnd a one-off ransom of £86k over 7 years for MOA
By the end of his reign Edward's annual revenue from recurring sources was at least £65k as compared with that of HT £105K in the last year of his reign but finances had been put straight and he died solvent which was more than any English king had done in the last 200 years (Ross). But, as Ross also says, war was terribly expensive and that hit Richard.
Hope this helps. H
From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017, 16:27
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

AJ, FWIW, I seem to recall that, until Parliament began auditing the books anyway, all income was considered to be the King's personal income and it didn't matter whether that income came from rents or taxes. That would be where the idea of the King living on his own (income) likely came from. I think, even at this period, there were two ways for the King to spend money; the Privy Purse, which was used for personal bequests and household expenses, and the Exchequer, which was used for all other expenditures, such as paying soldiers. However, as any expenditures from the Privy Purse eventually came from the Exchequer, it appears using the Privy Purse was more on the order of pocket money for the King; a way of avoiding the bureaucrats at the Treasury, so to speak. Hope you find the article (and it's available online), it sounds interesting! Doug AJ wrote: Thanks Doug, I'll be taking a look at it. Somewhere I have seen an article that demonstrated that the income (of the realm? king?) increased under King Richard. But typically I laid it aside to fully digest later and have now lost track of it to the point that I can't even remember whether it was what we might consider the government's income, the king's personal income, or what. It was long enough ago too that I haven't a clue where I saw it, other than it might have been an academic historical journal, or something that was part of a symposium. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the Ricardian.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Oh absolutely, perhaps they put some extra 'by'. But until Tyrell took over in Jan 1485 they might have had to have kept an eye on Blount and his family's leanings. He could have used the garrison for quite another reason. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2017, 15:39
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, would I be right in thinking that it was in the merchants interest to keep the garrison at Calais funded because they would be defending them from any piracy that might have happened. It would probably be disastrous to lose a ship.
Mary

Sorry Stephen I thought you were talking about the Tyrell visit. Doug, Humphrey was our Henry's father and was always broke. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2017, 15:56
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Stephen, The period of service for Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham was from approximately 1442 to 1450. I originally posted that Edmund, Duke of Somerset served a six-year term as Captain of Calais but, scrolling further down the preview, it appears he only served from 1451 until 1454. I presumed the Buckingham mentioned was either the father or grandfather of our Buckingham. Doug Stephen wrote:
Was this before or after summer 1483, during which Buckingham rebelled and was subsequently attainted?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, Ross wrote Edward long before he went for Richard.Doug and f you can't find a copy I have a spare. Postage costs only if you'd like it. Not new, but if desperate.....Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 15 juil. 2017 à 07:42, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> a écrit :

ÿ

Hi, Doug - Don't know if Ross is still in print, but I found my copy via Amazon. You might try "googling" it there. Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] To: Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 7:59 AM Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary, If I understand you correctly, that 25 thousand represented the gross income for the king, and that he still had to pay the expenses of running the government from that amount? Well, except maybe the judges, jurors and prosecutors who'd receive their pay from legal fines? Also, was the Staple considered part of that 25,000? If so, it'd represent about 12.5% of the monarch's annual income  and all, or almost all, being spent on the Calais garrisons! I think that phrase of yours ...because collectors were slow or just negligent. goes a long way in explaining Richard's letter to Tyrrell. Richard wanted to ensure the garrisons' pay was promptly paid. Even though Edward and his brother Richard had been considered legitimate royals, spending 3,000 pounds on Richard could lead to the presumption that a similar amount was intended for Edward; IOW, something on the order of 25% of the annual income of the country being spent on two illegitimate children! I really should have caught that sooner! Doug Who wonders if Ross' Edward IV (the presumed reference) is in print? Hilary wrote: Exactly, Doug. The chapter on finances in Ross's 'Edward' is very good (and probably also owes a lot to Horrox). The money collected from taxes amounted to about £25k in a good year, but there weren't a lot of good years because collectors were slow or just negligent. Edward (and Richard) poked them a bit so things were better when Edward died, but he'd had the French pension until very recently anyway. So £3k would be a huge amount to set aside to placate a ten year old. H

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

Doug we agree!!! I had to think it through by comparing my own VAT returns and there was always enough haggling over those. As you say this was very open to fiddling, even through counting sacks. Perhaps Richard knew that the taxes that were gnerally paid to him after taking out the costs of the garrison amounted to that on £3k worth of wool? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 July 2017, 17:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary wrote: Doug I think we're both agreeing it was an ingenious way to make extra non-repayable money and quite fast. Doug here: Well, except that I think this wasn't a case of Richard trying to make extra cash so much as his anticipating his income from the Staple. I know he got a percentage, but I don't know either his percentage or what it amounted to the amount) or when it was paid into the royal coffers. Hilary concluded: I can't seem to get hold of an actual copy of the Act of Retainer. You see Ross implies that the merchants were allowed to keep the customs duties they collected on the wool to pay the garrison, which he says was about £10k a year (see my other email). So what happened if they collected more - did they hang on to it on the assumption that it would cover years when it fell short? Was there regulation that any surplus was immediately passed on to the king and how long would that take? Who 'did the accounts' - we know that elsewhere collectors took ages to chase up stuff and it seems to leave room for a bit of crooked accounting and 'backpocketing' on the part of the Staple. The wool trade was booming at this time because of the various agreements Edward had made in the 1470s so if the money didn't pass through the king first I don't know how you'd make sure he ever got his hands on the surplus. Or did they pass it to the king first and they had to reclaim it? It seems daft that they collect it, pass it to the king in England who then passes it back, surely it would be more efficient to send him the balance? All in the days before electronic banking. It must just be the way Ross has phrased it and I can't get hold of Lander which is where he took it from. Sorry to be so obtuse. H Doug here: FWIW, I think what's happening is that Richard knows the merchants of the Staple are responsible for paying the costs of the garrison (that's that Act of Retainer you mentioned in another post). The usual procedure is for the merchants to pay the costs of the garrison and then, at some appointed time, present their bills showing what they'd paid for the upkeep of the garrison. Then, and this is where it gets a bit complicated, the amounts disbursed by the merchants for the upkeep of the garrison, would be compared with the amount the King should have received in taxes on all the wool sold during that period. If there was more owing to the King, I suppose it was sent off to London; if the King owed the merchants, then the merchants would probably have some of the tax remitted on the next batch of wool that was sold. In this instance, or so it seems to me, what Richard is doing is getting the tax on the wool sales at once, not waiting for any totting up at the end of the year or whenever. And, as you mentioned, there was a lot of room for hanky-panky and fiddling with the figures before that final total was reached. Then there's the simple point of when were the garrison's various bills (troops' pay, food, weapons, horses) paid by the merchants? I seriously doubt those bills were paid as soon as they came in; more likely those bills were put off for as long as the merchants dared. Which is why Richard wanted Sir James to take 3,000 pounds worth of wool in lieu of any taxes due and before he usually received them. and, Then, or so I think, Sir James was to apply that money to the costs of the garrison, ensuring the troops were paid, etc. rather than wait for the merchants to get around to paying up. Which is one reason the Calais position was so important and needed to be held by someone Richard trusted. Every in-coming sack of wool had to be accounted for and that number compared against every out-going sack of wool in order to ensure the King received the correct amount of tax money on the wool. Which meant, in turn, that trustworthy people had to meet every incoming vessel and check its' cargo. If there were sacks of wool on board, then the exact number of sacks had to be tallied. The same applied when the wool was sold; every sack sold had to be counted, as well as the amount received for that wool, because the King's portion of the Staple depended on how much the wool sold for. By the way, is there any clue about whether that 10,000 pounds represents the total cost of the garrison or the total custom duties? At any rate, that's why I think what Sir James was doing was simply taking the King's share, aka the tax on exported wool, before it had been officially determined just what that amount would be. As you say, this was before electronic banking (or almost any banking as we know it) and the Staple was simply a method of collecting taxes at the point of sales where it was easiest and not wait for those honest, up-right merchants to send in what they owed... Doug Who doesn't think you're obtuse at all  it's taken me a week to work it out this far! And I might still be wrong...
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

As David has pointed out he was involved with pirates as well as mercenaries in his attempt to usurp the throne.
Mary

Interestingly, when looking at Richard's finances Ross refers to a considerable naval battle which Richard won off the coast of Scarborough in 1483 against the French and Bretons 'through his own skill' which implies that he actually took command in a naval battle. I've not heard of that one before but Warwick was perhaps the best sailor of the age so perhaps he tutored young Richard in naval battles as well?
Also Richard purchased more hackbuts (hand guns) than had been used in the past and built up the armoury in the Tower of London. All this cost money of course. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 9:59
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

As David has pointed out he was involved with pirates as well as mercenaries in his attempt to usurp the throne.
Mary

Wasn't Richard Lord Admiral of England as well as Lord Constable and Protector? Just found my copy of Ross's Richard must try to get time to read it.
Mary

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several. He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord. One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish, when he could easily have made his excuses about attending. What a man! Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.

I believe it was 1484, during which Richard can be documented as having been in Scarborough. It is obscure (not well documented).

A J

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:04 AM, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:
 

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle  He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several.  He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord.  One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish,  when he could easily have made his excuses about attending.  What a man!  Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.  

It was the men of the North Eileen - John Nesfield and Thomas Everingham. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 14:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several. He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord. One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish, when he could easily have made his excuses about attending. What a man! Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.

Crowland, in the Pronay and Cox translation, wrote (& He [King Richard] observed the new method, introduced by King Edward at the time of the last war in Scotland, of allocating one mounted courier to every 20 miles: riding with the utmost skill and not crossing their bounds, these men carried messages 200 miles within two days without fail by letters passed from hand to hand&.(In addition, when concerned with maritime affairs right at the beginning of the second year of his reign, although he had lost to the French some ships and two of the toughest captains Sir Thomas Everingham and the already mentioned John Nesfield Esquire, near the town and castle of Scarborough, at the same time and in the same maritime theatre he had remarkable success against the Scots. So considerable was this that they sent the most noble petitioners who could be found in the kingdom as ambassadors to the king at Nottingham town and castle on 7 September, earnestly asking for peace and an end to the fighting in a long and eloquent address  notwithstanding that on land in that same summer, after they had incurred great destruction from our men, they inflicted no less destruction upon us, for the Scottish fugitives, Lord James Douglas* and many others who were his companions in exile, besides many Englishmen captures in battle, fell into their hands. Agreements were therefore drawn up, as the king desired, between the commissioners of each kingdom on those matters which seemed to require particular attention and after the assembly had been dissolved the king returned to London in Michaelmas term; it was still the year 1484.
___* Wikipedia identifies this as the Battle of Lochmaben Fair. Although Crowland insinuated that this was a failure on King Richard's part, Wikipedia's entry for the battle itself describes the battle as "an engagement in Lochmaben, Scotland, on 22 July 1484 between Scottish loyalists to James III of Scotland and the rebels Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany and James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, leading cavalry from England. Both exiles from Scotland, Albany and Douglas invaded ***with permission but not support of Richard III of England,*** hoping to encourage rebellion against James. Instead, they were met with armed resistance. The loyalists took the day. Douglas was captured and Albany forced to retreat." This appears to be a topic in need of further study, although I understand that many Scottish records for this era no longer survive.

Wikipedia (I know) but when I want to know where to start with a new topic, I often start with the Wikipedia entry. It has now gone back on the to-do pile for the time-being, although I hope, that a member or members of the Scottish Branch may be able to turn up some more information.

A J

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

It was the men of the North Eileen - John Nesfield and Thomas Everingham. H 

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 14:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

  I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle  He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several.  He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord.  One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish,  when he could easily have made his excuses about attending.  What a man!  Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.  

It's on page 205 Mary but doesn't have a direct reference, which is unusual for Ross.
On the other topic of William Brecher, I've found two references to him in the Close Rolls - one in 1473 and another in 1475. He was given the office of Forester of Purbeck
'Oct. 1.
Westminster. 1475
To the customers, collectors, receivers, occupiers or farmers of customs and subsidies in the port of Poole and ports adjacent. Order to pay 6d. a day out of the above customs etc. to William Brecher, whom for his good service the king has appointed to the office of forester of the forest of Purbik co. Dorset, formerly held by Hugh Fenne, to be occupied by himself or sufficient deputy for his life with all wages, fees, profits and regards to the same pertaining: which said office one Gilbert Martyn held in the reign of Edward III, and in the great roll of 33 Edward IV it was learnt that 6d. a day was allotted to the said Gilbert; order to pay the said William the arrears since 15 December, 12 Edward IV, the date of the letters patent to him.
I wonder what services they were? I can't find him under Richard, but it undermines the 'Edwardian Yorkist' theory yet again as Brecher obviously was loyal to him as well.
There is one intriguing point. Tisbury is next to Chicklade - you know Eleanor's land in Wiltshire? You can follow trails in this forever. H



From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 10:43
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Wasn't Richard Lord Admiral of England as well as Lord Constable and Protector? Just found my copy of Ross's Richard must try to get time to read it.
Mary

HIlary wrote 'it was the men of the North'
OK,,,thanks Hilary..I know very little about this subject.

I quite agree AJ that we don't know nearly enough about the Scottish Wars. I have been saying this for some time. Ross doesn't invoke Croyland but says Richard won a 'considerable naval battle' at Scarborough. Thomas Everingham lived until 1489 and fought at Bosworth so Croyland seems to have got it wrong. H

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 16:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Crowland, in the Pronay and Cox translation, wrote (& He [King Richard] observed the new method, introduced by King Edward at the time of the last war in Scotland, of allocating one mounted courier to every 20 miles: riding with the utmost skill and not crossing their bounds, these men carried messages 200 miles within two days without fail by letters passed from hand to hand&.(In addition, when concerned with maritime affairs right at the beginning of the second year of his reign, although he had lost to the French some ships and two of the toughest captains Sir Thomas Everingham and the already mentioned John Nesfield Esquire, near the town and castle of Scarborough, at the same time and in the same maritime theatre he had remarkable success against the Scots. So considerable was this that they sent the most noble petitioners who could be found in the kingdom as ambassadors to the king at Nottingham town and castle on 7 September, earnestly asking for peace and an end to the fighting in a long and eloquent address  notwithstanding that on land in that same summer, after they had incurred great destruction from our men, they inflicted no less destruction upon us, for the Scottish fugitives, Lord James Douglas* and many others who were his companions in exile, besides many Englishmen captures in battle, fell into their hands. Agreements were therefore drawn up, as the king desired, between the commissioners of each kingdom on those matters which seemed to require particular attention and after the assembly had been dissolved the king returned to London in Michaelmas term; it was still the year 1484.
___* Wikipedia identifies this as the Battle of Lochmaben Fair. Although Crowland insinuated that this was a failure on King Richard's part, Wikipedia's entry for the battle itself describes the battle as "an engagement in Lochmaben, Scotland, on 22 July 1484 between Scottish loyalists to James III of Scotland and the rebels Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany and James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, leading cavalry from England. Both exiles from Scotland, Albany and Douglas invaded ***with permission but not support of Richard III of England,*** hoping to encourage rebellion against James. Instead, they were met with armed resistance. The loyalists took the day. Douglas was captured and Albany forced to retreat." This appears to be a topic in need of further study, although I understand that many Scottish records for this era no longer survive.

Wikipedia (I know) but when I want to know where to start with a new topic, I often start with the Wikipedia entry. It has now gone back on the to-do pile for the time-being, although I hope, that a member or members of the Scottish Branch may be able to turn up some more information.

A J

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
It was the men of the North Eileen - John Nesfield and Thomas Everingham. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 14:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several. He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord. One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish, when he could easily have made his excuses about attending. What a man! Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.

I have been elbow deep in the 'men of the North' for several months Eileen. I think I know every Northern village, and then another one comes out of the blue :) :) Thank goodness (or not) for IPMs.H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 17:17
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

HIlary wrote 'it was the men of the North'
OK,,,thanks Hilary..I know very little about this subject.

Hilary,Perhaps we are assuming that 'lost' meant that they died. It could mean they were taken prisoner. Sailing under the appropriate documents was meant to confer protection in that the crew would be treated as prisoners-of-war.
Commynes hints that the French were disappointed that the alleged son died, stressing that it was unintended. Perhaps they could have expected a bounty.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 at 22:16, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

I quite agree AJ that we don't know nearly enough about the Scottish Wars. I have been saying this for some time. Ross doesn't invoke Croyland but says Richard won a 'considerable naval battle' at Scarborough. Thomas Everingham lived until 1489 and fought at Bosworth so Croyland seems to have got it wrong. H

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 16:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Crowland, in the Pronay and Cox translation, wrote (& He [King Richard] observed the new method, introduced by King Edward at the time of the last war in Scotland, of allocating one mounted courier to every 20 miles: riding with the utmost skill and not crossing their bounds, these men carried messages 200 miles within two days without fail by letters passed from hand to hand&.(In addition, when concerned with maritime affairs right at the beginning of the second year of his reign, although he had lost to the French some ships and two of the toughest captains Sir Thomas Everingham and the already mentioned John Nesfield Esquire, near the town and castle of Scarborough, at the same time and in the same maritime theatre he had remarkable success against the Scots. So considerable was this that they sent the most noble petitioners who could be found in the kingdom as ambassadors to the king at Nottingham town and castle on 7 September, earnestly asking for peace and an end to the fighting in a long and eloquent address  notwithstanding that on land in that same summer, after they had incurred great destruction from our men, they inflicted no less destruction upon us, for the Scottish fugitives, Lord James Douglas* and many others who were his companions in exile, besides many Englishmen captures in battle, fell into their hands. Agreements were therefore drawn up, as the king desired, between the commissioners of each kingdom on those matters which seemed to require particular attention and after the assembly had been dissolved the king returned to London in Michaelmas term; it was still the year 1484.
___* Wikipedia identifies this as the Battle of Lochmaben Fair. Although Crowland insinuated that this was a failure on King Richard's part, Wikipedia's entry for the battle itself describes the battle as "an engagement in Lochmaben, Scotland, on 22 July 1484 between Scottish loyalists to James III of Scotland and the rebels Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany and James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, leading cavalry from England. Both exiles from Scotland, Albany and Douglas invaded ***with permission but not support of Richard III of England,*** hoping to encourage rebellion against James. Instead, they were met with armed resistance. The loyalists took the day. Douglas was captured and Albany forced to retreat." This appears to be a topic in need of further study, although I understand that many Scottish records for this era no longer survive.

Wikipedia (I know) but when I want to know where to start with a new topic, I often start with the Wikipedia entry. It has now gone back on the to-do pile for the time-being, although I hope, that a member or members of the Scottish Branch may be able to turn up some more information.

A J

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
It was the men of the North Eileen - John Nesfield and Thomas Everingham. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 14:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several. He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord. One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish, when he could easily have made his excuses about attending. What a man! Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.

I've got a bit further with this. I managed to find a scholarly article about Everingham's service in Burgundy under Maximilien in the late 1470s to 1481. He was apparently a distinguished commander. Apparently Ross (and Schofield) confused him with another Thomas Everingham of Stainborough who was actually an attainted Lancastrian and died in Leicester in 1468. He too was also a naval commander.
No-one seems to know what happened to Everingham after the Scarborough affair, but by 1485 his servants were appealing for payment so he was obviously dead by then. Another 'wrong' one on the Bosworth list. H

From: "Durose David daviddurose2000@... []" <>
To: "" <>; "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 22:58
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Hilary,Perhaps we are assuming that 'lost' meant that they died. It could mean they were taken prisoner. Sailing under the appropriate documents was meant to confer protection in that the crew would be treated as prisoners-of-war.
Commynes hints that the French were disappointed that the alleged son died, stressing that it was unintended. Perhaps they could have expected a bounty.
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 at 22:16, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote: I quite agree AJ that we don't know nearly enough about the Scottish Wars. I have been saying this for some time. Ross doesn't invoke Croyland but says Richard won a 'considerable naval battle' at Scarborough. Thomas Everingham lived until 1489 and fought at Bosworth so Croyland seems to have got it wrong. H

From: "A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 16:57
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Crowland, in the Pronay and Cox translation, wrote (& He [King Richard] observed the new method, introduced by King Edward at the time of the last war in Scotland, of allocating one mounted courier to every 20 miles: riding with the utmost skill and not crossing their bounds, these men carried messages 200 miles within two days without fail by letters passed from hand to hand&.(In addition, when concerned with maritime affairs right at the beginning of the second year of his reign, although he had lost to the French some ships and two of the toughest captains Sir Thomas Everingham and the already mentioned John Nesfield Esquire, near the town and castle of Scarborough, at the same time and in the same maritime theatre he had remarkable success against the Scots. So considerable was this that they sent the most noble petitioners who could be found in the kingdom as ambassadors to the king at Nottingham town and castle on 7 September, earnestly asking for peace and an end to the fighting in a long and eloquent address  notwithstanding that on land in that same summer, after they had incurred great destruction from our men, they inflicted no less destruction upon us, for the Scottish fugitives, Lord James Douglas* and many others who were his companions in exile, besides many Englishmen captures in battle, fell into their hands. Agreements were therefore drawn up, as the king desired, between the commissioners of each kingdom on those matters which seemed to require particular attention and after the assembly had been dissolved the king returned to London in Michaelmas term; it was still the year 1484.
___* Wikipedia identifies this as the Battle of Lochmaben Fair. Although Crowland insinuated that this was a failure on King Richard's part, Wikipedia's entry for the battle itself describes the battle as "an engagement in Lochmaben, Scotland, on 22 July 1484 between Scottish loyalists to James III of Scotland and the rebels Alexander Stewart, Duke of Albany and James Douglas, 9th Earl of Douglas, leading cavalry from England. Both exiles from Scotland, Albany and Douglas invaded ***with permission but not support of Richard III of England,*** hoping to encourage rebellion against James. Instead, they were met with armed resistance. The loyalists took the day. Douglas was captured and Albany forced to retreat." This appears to be a topic in need of further study, although I understand that many Scottish records for this era no longer survive.

Wikipedia (I know) but when I want to know where to start with a new topic, I often start with the Wikipedia entry. It has now gone back on the to-do pile for the time-being, although I hope, that a member or members of the Scottish Branch may be able to turn up some more information.

A J

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
It was the men of the North Eileen - John Nesfield and Thomas Everingham. H

From: "cherryripe.eileenb@ googlemail.com []" <@ yahoogroups.com>
To: @ yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 15 July 2017, 14:04
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I wonder if John Howard Duke of Norfolk was involved in this naval battle He certainly knew his way around ships and all that involved. He owned several. He was certainly involved with the fleet and successful sea raids in 1481.He was a very able man...Anne Crawford devotes a whole chapter covering JH,his ownership of ship and business interests in her biography Yorkist Lord. One of the very best and he doesnt get the acclaim he deserves...dying with Richard at Bosworth at an age, 60ish, when he could easily have made his excuses about attending. What a man! Compare him to that rat of a usurper Tudor and his cronies is like comparing hamburger to steak.

Hilary,
And, apparently, serving at Calais didn't help!
Doug

Hilary wrote:
Sorry Stephen I thought you were talking about the Tyrell visit. Doug, Humphrey was our Henry's father and was always broke. H



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

Nance, I've done a google search and it appears there are plenty of sources for new or used copies. Thanks for the tip, though! Doug Nance wrote: Don't know if Ross is still in print, but I found my copy via Amazon. You might try "googling" it there.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul, Thank your for the very kind offer, but it appears there are plenty of possible sources where it's available. (I'll keep your offer in mind though  just in case!) Doug Paul wrote Hilary, Ross wrote Edward long before he went for Richard. Doug and f you can't find a copy I have a spare. Postage costs only if you'd like it. Not new, but if desperate.....
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Sorry Paul, yes he did six years' before, yet Edward is a much less vitriolic book. Wonder what changed him. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 16 July 2017, 17:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Paul, Thank your for the very kind offer, but it appears there are plenty of possible sources where it's available. (I'll keep your offer in mind though  just in case!) Doug Paul wrote Hilary, Ross wrote Edward long before he went for Richard. Doug and f you can't find a copy I have a spare. Postage costs only if you'd like it. Not new, but if desperate.....
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary, Thank you for the financial information (and apologies for the delay in replying)! So it appears that, as you said, as long as there was a threat of invasion, Richard would be spending way more than his income. I also noted that Edward was spending approximately 47.00 pounds per annum, while taking in 65,000, leaving a surplus of nearly 20,000. As you mentioned, there was fighting somewhere during most of the period 1460-1471, and, I presume, that, along with repaying those bankers, is where the surplus went. At least part of it, anyway. I'm also wondering about that 10,000 set aside for the Calais garrison. If manning that garrison cost that much, no wonder Richard was having financial difficulties in 1485! A thought did occur to me, though. What if that 10,000, out of which the garrison was to be supplied and paid, represented the usual annual income from the Staple, and not the actual expense of the garrison? What if that amount was what the costs of the garrison were before the merchants starting paying the bills directly? Prior to that Act, the goal of the merchants would have been to pay as little as possible to the King, afterwards, however, their goal would have been to pay as little as possible while showing what they'd paid, in order to have their expenses placed against the taxes they owed on the sale of wool. IOW, before the Act, their goal was, as with most tax-payers, paying as little as possible; afterwards, OTOH, while the goal was to pay as little as possible, they'd need to prove what bills they had paid to get credit. Unless, of course, as you wondered in an earlier post, the wool merchants were allowed to keep all their profits after paying for the costs of the garrison. Something I rather doubt, if only because Edward seems to have had a head for figures  and a desire to accumulate ready cash. Anyway, thanks again Doug Hilary wrote: AJ I think it's fair to say it did until Richard had to deal with HT's threatened invasion. He had to purchase and maintain a fleet which was 'enormously expensive' and hard to keep at sea. He had to guess where HT would land and there had been invasion forces in at least six counties during the WOTR. Ross maintains that by the summer of 1485 he was running seriously short of funds (Harl 43, fos. 144v, 151v, 180v) to the extent that he'd had to dismantle his posting system (this is Croyland). And spies, although effective, were also very expensive. Basically, HT's threatened activities were draining the country and, as well as the £3k, by January 1485 Richard was levying money for the payment of troops on the mainland. AJ/Doug, I'll try to summarise how things worked. By 1450 Henry VI owed £372k because revenue from taxation had fallen to £24k a year from £90k a year under Henry IV. Edward's Parliament agreed to increased taxes which yielded £93k in total over the ten years between 1461 and 1471 but most of this was swallowed up by dealing with rebellion. All this of course shows how costly war was. Expenditure was as follows per annum: Royal household £12k Admin/diplomacy £10k Calais garrison (until 1466) £10k Policing the marches £3 - 6k EW's household £4.5k Richard/George £4k So Ross estimates that this came to approximately £50k a year without extraordinary expenditure like dowers and wars These were paid for by two annual sources Customs duties £25k Royal estates and wardships £30k - Edward chased these and took them from the Exchequer into his own hands The French pension £10k from 1475 To remedy this Edward: Revalued the coinage Borrowed from alien bankers (£38k up to 1475) Borrowed from Florentines £24k Introduced the Act of Retainer Chased up feudal dues (not always successful) Upped customs revenues to £34k after 1471 Introduced clergy taxation £6k And a one-off ransom of £86k over 7 years for MOA By the end of his reign Edward's annual revenue from recurring sources was at least £65k as compared with that of HT £105K in the last year of his reign but finances had been put straight and he died solvent which was more than any English king had done in the last 200 years (Ross). But, as Ross also says, war was terribly expensive and that hit Richard. Hope this helps. H
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Doug we agree!!! I had to think it through by comparing my own VAT returns and there was always enough haggling over those. As you say this was very open to fiddling, even through counting sacks. Perhaps Richard knew that the taxes that were gnerally paid to him after taking out the costs of the garrison amounted to that on £3k worth of wool? H Doug here: Huzzah! Now the only question (hah!) is whether that 10,000 represents the annual cost of the garrison or the (expected) annual Royal income from the Staple. If it's the former, then that 3,000 Sir James is to gather in via the sale of wool, says to me that Richard wanted the garrison properly paid on time. Offhand, do you know when in the year bills were presented for payment? That might have a lot to do with this. If it's the latter, then, or so it seems to me, Richard is authorizing Sir James to anticipate the Royal take that normally wouldn't be seen until whenever taxes were due. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Was it John Nesfield who was looking after EW when she came out of sanctuary?
Mary

I believe that EW lived in John Nesfield's household when she left sanctuary as I said in an earlier post so maybe he lived on and fought at Bosworth.
Mary

Yes H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 18:31
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

Was it John Nesfield who was looking after EW when she came out of sanctuary?
Mary

I haven't got him on my Bosworth list Mary. He's actually the hardest to track down. He last appears as in charge of the guard round Westminster but that and the earlier Scarborough skirmish are both Croyland. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 July 2017, 18:40
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Tyrell's Commission to Calais

I believe that EW lived in John Nesfield's household when she left sanctuary as I said in an earlier post so maybe he lived on and fought at Bosworth.
Mary