Richard III Research and Discussion Archive.

This is in answer to my post about depositions being sought about the precontract. It is in Annette Carson's Maligned King, updated version page 91. Richard Grafton (1569), elaborating on Hall's Chronicle depicts Richard bringing in authentic doctors, proctors and notaries of the law, with depositions from divers witnesses.Annette contends that witnessed must have been questioned, this process taking several weeks. This means Stillingtons revelation must have come in early May.

Karen wrote:

"This is in answer to my post about depositions being sought about the precontract. It is in Annette Carson's Maligned King, updated version page 91. Richard Grafton (1569), elaborating on Hall's Chronicle depicts Richard bringing in authentic doctors, proctors and notaries of the law, with depositions from divers witnesses. Annette contends that witnessed must have been questioned, this process taking several weeks. This means Stillingtons revelation must have come in early May."

Carol responds:

While I have no doubt that witnesses were questioned (Richard would have made sure of that), I have my doubts about the source, a sixteenth-century Tudor addendum to a notoriously unreliable Tudor chronicle (Hall). He (Hall) is the one who depicts Edmund of Rutland as a maidenly twelve-year-old boy murdered on Wakefield Bridge rather than a seventeen-year-old who fought in the battle (and may have died fighting). Where could Grafton have found material not available to earlier chroniclers? If he trusted Hall, he himself was unreliable. I also think the date (May, especially early May) is too early as there was no sign of trouble until Richard's hurried letters to York on June 10 regarding a conspiracy involving EW and her "blood adherents."

Carol

Also they were planning for Edward V's coronation right up until June 13th.
Mary

Mary wrote: Also they were planning for Edward V's coronation right up until June 13th. Doug here: The on-going planning for Edward V's coronation also had to continue until a final decision was made on whether or not to accept Stillington's information. If the Council rejected whatever proofs Stillington had presented to it then, of course, Edward would be crowned. OTOH, if the Council accepted those proofs, then arrangements would have to be made, not only for Richard's coronation, but to get out the word on why the person being crowned was Richard and not his nephew. Which also explains why the plot against Richard had to take place during that meeting of the Council, the final decision was to be made on whether or not accept Stillington's proofs and, from what did happen, it appears that the Council had and only needed to make its' decision official. Thus the plot to eliminate Richard before that decision which, had it succeeded, have left his nephew Edward as the undisputed king. Undisputed until Morton got busy, that is. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

So EW would have thought that MB and Morton had acted on behalf of her and her son, Hastings would have been somehow killed in the fight and then MB would only have to get rid of a boy king and his mother to claim the throne for her son. Somewhere along the way Edward of Middleham would have been disposed of or imprisoned with the Earl of Warwick. I suppose it is possible. I agree that probably the reason for the timing of the plot was to preempt the announcement of the precontract.
Mary

But .... also we need to be cautious about saying it was Stillington who revealed it and certainly that he witnessed it. Remember it's only Commines who links him with this and Commines, although a gossip, is usually quite detailed about things he really knows about. I was just reading his account of the 1475 Picquigny meeting (where he was present) and he either has an exceptionally good memory or he embroiders. The fact that he only says brief dubious stuff about Richard marrying off Stillington's son to EOY and gives no more detail of how and when Stillington revealed this, is something I'm sure he would have relished had he known. I'm sorry, but I don't buy JAH's 'proofs' on this. For a start Stillington was paid the same amount as Keeper of the Privy Purse by Henry VI and the instigation of his bishopric came not from Edward but from the Vatican. I can just about buy his part in the revelation, but not the witnessing. And we have no proper proof of either. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 September 2017, 17:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

So EW would have thought that MB and Morton had acted on behalf of her and her son, Hastings would have been somehow killed in the fight and then MB would only have to get rid of a boy king and his mother to claim the throne for her son. Somewhere along the way Edward of Middleham would have been disposed of or imprisoned with the Earl of Warwick. I suppose it is possible. I agree that probably the reason for the timing of the plot was to preempt the announcement of the precontract.
Mary

Mary wrote: So EW would have thought that MB and Morton had acted on behalf of her and her son, Hastings would have been somehow killed in the fight and then MB would only have to get rid of a boy king and his mother to claim the throne for her son. Somewhere along the way Edward of Middleham would have been disposed of or imprisoned with the Earl of Warwick. I suppose it is possible. I agree that probably the reason for the timing of the plot was to preempt the announcement of the precontract. Doug here: FWIW, I tend to think that at that point in time, MB and Morton were acting on the behalf of EW and her son, and that it was only after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion that their aims diverged. We also have to keep in mind the possibility that MB, on her own, may never have plotted to make Henry king and only provided him with support after he'd declared his intentions. I think that might make difference. Had the plot succeeded, and based on my reasoning above, it seems to me that Hastings would almost certainly have survived and been given some sort of post in Edward V's government. Morton would possibly have been made Chancellor, giving him an arena in which to exercise his talents, but after that the possibilities are such as to only make guesses. Obviously Richard would have been killed, and most likely Buckingham as well, but I don't know whether any action would have been taken against Edward of Middleham, or Edward of Warwick. Stillington would likely have begun his imprisonment a decade earlier. Whether MB would, in those circumstances, have ever plotted to make her son king, I really can't say. It looks to me as if the plot seemed aimed more at eliminating adult males with a good claim to the throne than eliminating possible alternatives to HT but, barring the discovery of that trunk full of documents, I can't be certain. It's certainly a pity that there's not more information about what talk was going around London at this time. If, as I believe, the plot against Richard was to prevent the Council officially adopting the position that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler when he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville, I find it amazing that, as far as we can show, not a single word about the Council's deliberations leaked! Really? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: But .... also we need to be cautious about saying it was Stillington who revealed it and certainly that he witnessed it. Remember it's only Commines who links him with this and Commines, although a gossip, is usually quite detailed about things he really knows about. I was just reading his account of the 1475 Picquigny meeting (where he was present) and he either has an exceptionally good memory or he embroiders. The fact that he only says brief dubious stuff about Richard marrying off Stillington's son to EOY and gives no more detail of how and when Stillington revealed this, is something I'm sure he would have relished had he known. I'm sorry, but I don't buy JAH's 'proofs' on this. For a start Stillington was paid the same amount as Keeper of the Privy Purse by H enry VI and the instigation of his bishopric came not from Edward but from the Vatican. I can just about buy his part in the revelation, but not the witnessing. And we have no proper proof of either. Doug here: Perhaps we'd be better off describing Stillington's role as that of sponsor? IOW, Stillington wasn't at Edward's and Eleanor's marriage ceremony, but whoever it was rated high enough in his estimation that the Bishop believed him (or her?). As they say on Antiques Roadshow, Stillington had the provenance of what did occur, whether it was someone providing him with actual documents or the verbal evidence of someone who either had participated or was in some sort of position to have known that the marriage had occurred. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

There is a school of thought that Stillington's only involvement was the drawing up of TR. He had great knowledge of Canon Law so maybe someone else reported Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor and he just did the paperwork.

Mary

Re your last point I do so agree Doug. Not a whisper of who was there, how many times they met. I've always thought it very convenient that the Stonor papers end with the execution of Hastings. And isn't this the sort of information that Commines would have loved to have collected later? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 17:17
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Mary wrote: So EW would have thought that MB and Morton had acted on behalf of her and her son, Hastings would have been somehow killed in the fight and then MB would only have to get rid of a boy king and his mother to claim the throne for her son. Somewhere along the way Edward of Middleham would have been disposed of or imprisoned with the Earl of Warwick. I suppose it is possible. I agree that probably the reason for the timing of the plot was to preempt the announcement of the precontract. Doug here: FWIW, I tend to think that at that point in time, MB and Morton were acting on the behalf of EW and her son, and that it was only after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion that their aims diverged. We also have to keep in mind the possibility that MB, on her own, may never have plotted to make Henry king and only provided him with support after he'd declared his intentions. I think that might make difference. Had the plot succeeded, and based on my reasoning above, it seems to me that Hastings would almost certainly have survived and been given some sort of post in Edward V's government. Morton would possibly have been made Chancellor, giving him an arena in which to exercise his talents, but after that the possibilities are such as to only make guesses. Obviously Richard would have been killed, and most likely Buckingham as well, but I don't know whether any action would have been taken against Edward of Middleham, or Edward of Warwick. Stillington would likely have begun his imprisonment a decade earlier. Whether MB would, in those circumstances, have ever plotted to make her son king, I really can't say. It looks to me as if the plot seemed aimed more at eliminating adult males with a good claim to the throne than eliminating possible alternatives to HT but, barring the discovery of that trunk full of documents, I can't be certain. It's certainly a pity that there's not more information about what talk was going around London at this time. If, as I believe, the plot against Richard was to prevent the Council officially adopting the position that Edward IV was married to Eleanor Butler when he went through a marriage ceremony with Elizabeth Woodville, I find it amazing that, as far as we can show, not a single word about the Council's deliberations leaked! Really? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Absolutely - you should watch Fake or Fortune!
I thought after I posted that I should have said it seems likely that Stillington was the channel for the information, which as you say, would have had to have come from a very credible source. If he was the 'informant' he really was putting his job on the line - or his head on the block - for the reaction could not be totally anticipated. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 17:25
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: But .... also we need to be cautious about saying it was Stillington who revealed it and certainly that he witnessed it. Remember it's only Commines who links him with this and Commines, although a gossip, is usually quite detailed about things he really knows about. I was just reading his account of the 1475 Picquigny meeting (where he was present) and he either has an exceptionally good memory or he embroiders. The fact that he only says brief dubious stuff about Richard marrying off Stillington's son to EOY and gives no more detail of how and when Stillington revealed this, is something I'm sure he would have relished had he known. I'm sorry, but I don't buy JAH's 'proofs' on this. For a start Stillington was paid the same amount as Keeper of the Privy Purse by H enry VI and the instigation of his bishopric came not from Edward but from the Vatican. I can just about buy his part in the revelation, but not the witnessing. And we have no proper proof of either. Doug here: Perhaps we'd be better off describing Stillington's role as that of sponsor? IOW, Stillington wasn't at Edward's and Eleanor's marriage ceremony, but whoever it was rated high enough in his estimation that the Bishop believed him (or her?). As they say on Antiques Roadshow, Stillington had the provenance of what did occur, whether it was someone providing him with actual documents or the verbal evidence of someone who either had participated or was in some sort of position to have known that the marriage had occurred. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Exactly Mary! And Commines did love a good yarn. H

From: "maryfriend@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 September 2017, 22:39
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

There is a school of thought that Stillington's only involvement was the drawing up of TR. He had great knowledge of Canon Law so maybe someone else reported Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor and he just did the paperwork.

Mary

Mary wrote: There is a school of thought that Stillington's only involvement was the drawing up of TR. He had great knowledge of Canon Law so maybe someone else reported Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor and he just did the paperwork. Doug here: It's only my personal view, but I tend to think Stillington was more involved than with only drawing up Titulus Regius. The question being, of course, just how much more. Which is why I also tend to think that Stillington was, besides being a/the composer of Titulus Regius, was at least also the conduit by which the knowledge of Edward marriage to Eleanor came to the Council. At least until we get some further evidence. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Have to agree Doug.
Would Richard have listened to anyone else without thinking it just another piece of gossip, but coming from a man of the church who had also been a close councillor of Edward's, he'd take it seriously enough to at least investigate. And once that started.Paul
Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 6 sept. 2017 à 17:02, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

Mary wrote: There is a school of thought that Stillington's only involvement was the drawing up of TR. He had great knowledge of Canon Law so maybe someone else reported Edward's secret marriage to Eleanor and he just did the paperwork. Doug here: It's only my personal view, but I tend to think Stillington was more involved than with only drawing up Titulus Regius. The question being, of course, just how much more. Which is why I also tend to think that Stillington was, besides being a/the composer of Titulus Regius, was at least also the conduit by which the knowledge of Edward marriage to Eleanor came to the Council. At least until we get some further evidence. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Re your last point [no news leaks from the Council-DS] I do so agree Doug. Not a whisper of who was there, how many times they met. I've always thought it very convenient that the Stonor papers end with the execution of Hastings. And isn't this the sort of information that Commines would have loved to have collected later? Doug here: For the longest time I thought Shaa's sermon at St. Paul's showed that at least a few rumors had escaped, but then, after re-reading Williamson's bit about the sermon, discovered the sermon was the Sunday after Hastings' execution! Oh, well... One can appreciate why those who supported (for whatever reason) Edward V didn't let anything get out  the charge alone, even if later proven false, would have had a very bad effect on support for Edward among the general population. And those who believed the charge to be true wouldn't want the information to get out until they'd decided just how to go about letting the population know Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth wasn't legal. It's entirely possible the lack of official records is simply due to a Ah, that's old stuff, toss it in the furnace attitude of later generations, but one wonders... And, of course, private records would also suffer from that attitude. Especially if there was anything in those letters, scribbled notes, whatever, that might not sit well with the current monarch (I'm particularly thinking of a certain two Henrys...). One thing I'm having difficulty with is determining just who was at that Council meeting. I know the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham were there, as was the Bishop of Bath and Lord Thomas Stanley, and, of course, Lord Hastings. But who else? Or was that it? I also have the notion (don't know where it came from), that Bourchier, the Chancellor, was attending the meetings devoted to arranging the coronation ceremonies. Is that correct; because one might be forgiven for thinking the Chancellor would most definitely be involved in such a decision. Questions and more questions... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Paul wrote: Have to agree Doug.
Would Richard have listened to anyone else without thinking it just another piece of gossip, but coming from a man of the church who had also been a close councillor of Edward's, he'd take it seriously enough to at least investigate. And once that started. Doug here: You wrote Would Richard have listened to anyone else without thinking it just another piece of gossip... and I rather think that also applies to Stillington. It's almost a certainty that Stillington wasn't at Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so however Stillington learned about it, I can't see him not doing some investigating as well. Do we know where Stillington was between the death of Edward IV and his showing up at the Council meeting and making his announcement? Could he have spent that time getting everything in order? My memory isn't perfect, but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning the Bishop's whereabouts prior to his arrival at that meeting. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:
"It's only my personal view, but I tend to think Stillington was more involved than with only drawing up Titulus Regius. The question being, of course, just how much more. Which is why I also tend to think that Stillington was, besides being a/the composer of Titulus Regius, was at least also the conduit by which the knowledge of Edward marriage to Eleanor came to the Council.At least until we get some further evidence."
Carol responds:

I agree with you. I think the fact that Henry immediately arrested Stillington and refused to let him speak before the new Parliament suggests strongly that Stillington had some solid supporting evidence for TR that Henry (and Morton) didn't want presented to *Henry's* Parliament (though it must have been presented to Richard's). Henry wouldn't have arrested the old man simply because he composed TR based on his knowledge of canon law. And the execution of Catesby points in the same direction (he knew too much)--as does the order to burn TR and all copies and related documents *unread.* So, for that matter, does Stillington's involvement in the Lambert Simnel affair.

Carol

Doug wrote:

"One thing I'm having difficulty with is determining just who was at that Council meeting. I know the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham were there, as was the Bishop of Bath and Lord Thomas Stanley, and, of course, Lord Hastings. But who else? Or was that it? I also have the notion (don't know where it came from), that Bourchier, the Chancellor, was attending the meetings devoted to arranging the coronation ceremonies. Is that correct; because one might be forgiven for thinking the Chancellor would most definitely be involved in such a decision."

Carol responds:

Good question, Doug. Wish I knew the answer. One small correction, though. The chancellor was Bishop John Russell. Bourchier, the archbishop of Canterbury, seems also to have been present as he persuaded EW to give her second son into Richard's custody. Both were undoubtedly involved in the decision to postpone the coronation ceremony and both would surely have signed the petition to Richard asking him to accept the crown. What a shame the signatures on that petition weren't preserved when it was copied into Titulus Regius.

Another person who was definitely involved was Buckingham. Quite possibly, John Howard, soon to be Duke of Norfolk, was also there.

Do we know the members of Edward IV's council? Richard as Protector would have retained all of them. Morton and Rotherham (demoted from his position as chancellor) were still there until the fateful meeting on the thirteenth.

I don't think the meeting at which they were arrested was the same one at which the coronation was postponed. I think that happened after Richard of York had joined his brother in the Tower on June 16. And certainly, no decision had been made for Richard to take the throne. He didn't accept the kingship until the petition was presented to him on June 26. (Shaa's sermon was preached on June 22.) I think the dates on which the few messages cancelling the Parliament set for July 6 (7?) were sent out would be helpful.

As for whether Russell and Bourchier were at the meeting where Hastings was arrested, I suspect that they were, given their importance. Administrative details like robes, decorations, invitations, and scheduling would be delegated to lesser officials.

Carol

Carol






--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner http://www.mailscanner.info/, and is
believed to be clean.

Remember also that Stillington was a Yorkshireman, and that his family was part of the affinity around Richard in the North. That must have carried some weight with Richard, after all this affinity stayed loyal to him until the very end. And in that affinity also was Stillington's nephew by marriage's brother - John Ingleby, EW and Edward's confessor. Stillington seemed to spend the majority of time at St Martin's (where Anne had once been lodged) where he remained in charge until after Bosworth. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 16:45
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Paul wrote: Have to agree Doug.
Would Richard have listened to anyone else without thinking it just another piece of gossip, but coming from a man of the church who had also been a close councillor of Edward's, he'd take it seriously enough to at least investigate. And once that started. Doug here: You wrote Would Richard have listened to anyone else without thinking it just another piece of gossip... and I rather think that also applies to Stillington. It's almost a certainty that Stillington wasn't at Edward and Eleanor's marriage, so however Stillington learned about it, I can't see him not doing some investigating as well. Do we know where Stillington was between the death of Edward IV and his showing up at the Council meeting and making his announcement? Could he have spent that time getting everything in order? My memory isn't perfect, but I don't recall anyone ever mentioning the Bishop's whereabouts prior to his arrival at that meeting. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re your penultimate paragraph and dates, Carol I stumbled across an entry in the Foedera dated 22 June. It is from Edward (V) summoning to Westminster those who are to be knighted at his coronation. These are on the recommendation of his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. So whoever issued this on behalf of the new king couldn't have known what was about to happen.
(incidentally re my other post to Doug, (Sir) John Speke was one of those summoned) H

From: "justcarol67@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 September 2017, 19:36
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Doug wrote:

"One thing I'm having difficulty with is determining just who was at that Council meeting. I know the Dukes of Gloucester and Buckingham were there, as was the Bishop of Bath and Lord Thomas Stanley, and, of course, Lord Hastings. But who else? Or was that it? I also have the notion (don't know where it came from), that Bourchier, the Chancellor, was attending the meetings devoted to arranging the coronation ceremonies. Is that correct; because one might be forgiven for thinking the Chancellor would most definitely be involved in such a decision."

Carol responds:

Good question, Doug. Wish I knew the answer. One small correction, though. The chancellor was Bishop John Russell. Bourchier, the archbishop of Canterbury, seems also to have been present as he persuaded EW to give her second son into Richard's custody. Both were undoubtedly involved in the decision to postpone the coronation ceremony and both would surely have signed the petition to Richard asking him to accept the crown. What a shame the signatures on that petition weren't preserved when it was copied into Titulus Regius.

Another person who was definitely involved was Buckingham. Quite possibly, John Howard, soon to be Duke of Norfolk, was also there.

Do we know the members of Edward IV's council? Richard as Protector would have retained all of them. Morton and Rotherham (demoted from his position as chancellor) were still there until the fateful meeting on the thirteenth.

I don't think the meeting at which they were arrested was the same one at which the coronation was postponed. I think that happened after Richard of York had joined his brother in the Tower on June 16. And certainly, no decision had been made for Richard to take the throne. He didn't accept the kingship until the petition was presented to him on June 26. (Shaa's sermon was preached on June 22.) I think the dates on which the few messages cancelling the Parliament set for July 6 (7?) were sent out would be helpful.

As for whether Russell and Bourchier were at the meeting where Hastings was arrested, I suspect that they were, given their importance. Administrative details like robes, decorations, invitations, and scheduling would be delegated to lesser officials.

Carol

Carol

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner http://www.mailscanner.info/, and is
believed to be clean.

Carol wrote:
I agree with you. I think the fact that Henry immediately arrested Stillington and refused to let him speak before the new Parliament suggests strongly that Stillington had some solid supporting evidence for TR that Henry (and Morton) didn't want presented to *Henry's* Parliament (though it must have been presented to Richard's). Henry wouldn't have arrested the old man simply because he composed TR based on his knowledge of canon law. And the execution of Catesby points in the same direction (he knew too much)--as does the order to burn TR and all copies and related documents *unread.* So, for that matter, does Stillington's involvement in the Lambert Simnel affair. Doug here: What I've found interesting since I became interested in Richard is that so many people have acted as if Titulu Regius was some sort of legislation passed by Parliament when, in actuality, it was more on the lines of a resolution. The difference being that the former enacted or changed a law, while the latter, in this case, simply recognized an existing legal state as in this link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/resolution TR never made any changes to the status of Edward IV's children, it only recognized the legal state, illegitimacy, into which Edward's actions had placed them. It wasn't an Act of Parliament that made Edward's children illegitimate, it was Edward, through his bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Which is something HT most certainly wouldn't want Stillington to tell to Parliament. Perhaps HT's original reason for arresting Stillington was that Henry believed, as many historians since have, that the story of Edward marrying Eleanor was just that  a story. However, once presented with the same evidence Stillington had presented to Parliament, Henry then decided that a repeal of TR, unread, would best suit his purposes; especially if there was as much confusion then as now about what TR had actually done? Catesby's execution three days after Bosworth, and that line in his will, does look as if he was executed for some other reason than just his support of Richard. His execution may have been the result of a combination of events that included, but wasn't limited to, his part in getting TR through Parliament. We also have to remember that, through his inheritance of lands and manors, his own efforts in acquiring more of the same, and additional gifts of lands from Richard, Catesby was really quite wealthy. I know the Stanleys had been at odds with Hastings over their conflicting claims to influence in the West and Northwest of England, but don't know if Catesby had replaced Hastings as a rival to the Stanley influence. If he had, or the Stanleys feared that he might, that could explain that line: Catesby hadn't done anything against the Stanley interests, and may even have assisted them in some dealings, so why hadn't they helped him? It's Stillington's involvement in the Simnel affair that makes me question the received assessment of it. Here's a man who was a loyal supporter of the legitimate Yorkist succession. He acknowledged Edward V as his father's son, but not Edward's legitimacy. So why support a pretender who wasn't even an illegitimate offspring of Edward or George? It's still only my suspicion, but if Richard could smuggle his nephews out of the Tower without anyone noticing, why couldn't someone else smuggle Edward of Warwick out? Because, I'm sorry, but HT's treatment of the real Lambert Simnel doesn't fit in with the treatment of the other prestender, Perkin Warbeck. If Simnel had been a stand-in for the imprisoned Warwick, why was he executed? Or, at the very least, imprisoned? Instead he's given a job in the Royal Household! If, OTOH, it was the Warwick HT paraded around London who was the pretender that might just explain a lot. Or not. Doug

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

Hilary wrote: Absolutely - you should watch Fake or Fortune! Doug here: I've found a bunch of the episodes on Youtube, so I can view them at my leisure there. Apparently they've only been shown here on a PBS station in Chicago and not by the one I have. Hilary concluded:
I thought after I posted that I should have said it seems likely that Stillington was the channel for the information, which as you say, would have had to have come from a very credible source. If he was the 'informant' he really was putting his job on the line - or his head on the block - for the reaction could not be totally anticipated. Doug here: I plan on using channel or conduit from now on when I refer to Stillington and his meetings with the Council and Parliament. Subject, of course, to further information! And I definitely agree that Stillington must have been quite confident about his source/s before he stood up in Council and starting speaking. A charge of lese majeste would have been the least of his worries... FWIW, according to his Wikipedia entry, Stillington held some position in Edward V's government. Do we know what position? Or is the article in error? I ask because if Stillington was already a member of the government, wouldn't that give his presentation(?) a bit more support? If only because it would be obvious the good Bishop wasn't angling for some appointment? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, see my reply to Nico re the Pre Contract.
One thing of course I've never considered was whether Stillington was a Yorkist 'mole'. There's no doubt that in Somerset/Dorset he was in the depths of old Lancastrian/MB/Morton territory; in fact actually he would have been a marvellous 'plant' because people talk to bishops. We know Edward used spies a lot. And he could have put Stillington in the Tower after Clarence's demise to affirm that he wasn't one. What would really help would be to know who the mother of Juliana Hampton was. I think that would explain an awful lot.
But like you, I think that the Simnel affair confirms he was a Yorkist at heart - in fact it's hard to think of a Yorkshireman who betrayed Richard. Even those like Halnath Mauleverer, who'd moved elsewhere, always remained loyal to the end. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 15:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Absolutely - you should watch Fake or Fortune! Doug here: I've found a bunch of the episodes on Youtube, so I can view them at my leisure there. Apparently they've only been shown here on a PBS station in Chicago and not by the one I have. Hilary concluded:
I thought after I posted that I should have said it seems likely that Stillington was the channel for the information, which as you say, would have had to have come from a very credible source. If he was the 'informant' he really was putting his job on the line - or his head on the block - for the reaction could not be totally anticipated. Doug here: I plan on using channel or conduit from now on when I refer to Stillington and his meetings with the Council and Parliament. Subject, of course, to further information! And I definitely agree that Stillington must have been quite confident about his source/s before he stood up in Council and starting speaking. A charge of lese majeste would have been the least of his worries... FWIW, according to his Wikipedia entry, Stillington held some position in Edward V's government. Do we know what position? Or is the article in error? I ask because if Stillington was already a member of the government, wouldn't that give his presentation(?) a bit more support? If only because it would be obvious the good Bishop wasn't angling for some appointment? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I like 'resolution' to describe Titulus Regius, as it does define the legal situation, which had previously been kept secret rather than create anything new.
The Lambert Simnel question isn't clear to me either, and while stories about changelings seem far fetched, something doesn't quite come together here. We are told that Clarence's bid to send young Warwick out of the country failed, but can we really be sure? Could a switch have occured later? After, the turmoil of 1483, I don't think that Stillington would have supported any campaign that would have given the throne to anyone other than the genuine heir of Clarence. If Lambert Simnel was only an impostor, then why crown him in Dublin, with all the religious significance of such an occasion? If he was meant to be a stand in for the real Earl, then wouldn't it be better to wait. Even HT didn't know what to do with him, believing that the coronation ceremony gave him a priestly status. What really makes me suspicious is the Earl of Lincoln's behavior. After meeting the Earl of Warwick, his reaction is to escape to Flanders and start plotting with Margaret of Burgundy. Perhaps it was immediately obvious to him that he was not the real Warwick.
Nico


On Thursday, 7 September 2017, 15:05:16 GMT+1, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

    Carol wrote:
I agree with you. I think the fact that Henry immediately arrested Stillington and refused to let him speak before the new Parliament suggests strongly that Stillington had some solid supporting evidence for TR that Henry (and Morton) didn't want presented to *Henry's* Parliament (though it must have been presented to Richard's). Henry wouldn't have arrested the old man simply because he composed TR based on his knowledge of canon law. And the execution of Catesby points in the same direction (he knew too much)--as does the order to burn TR and all copies and related documents *unread.* So, for that matter, does Stillington's involvement in the Lambert Simnel affair.       Doug here: What I've found interesting since I became interested in Richard is that so many people have acted as if Titulu Regius was some sort of legislation passed by Parliament when, in actuality, it was more on the lines of a resolution. The difference being that the former enacted or changed a law, while the latter, in this case, simply recognized an existing legal state as in this link: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/resolution TR never made any changes to the status of Edward IV's children, it only recognized the legal state, illegitimacy, into which Edward's actions had placed them. It wasn't an Act of Parliament that made Edward's children illegitimate, it was Edward, through his bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. Which is something HT most certainly wouldn't want Stillington to tell to Parliament. Perhaps HT's original reason for arresting Stillington was that Henry believed, as many historians since have, that the story of Edward marrying Eleanor was just that  a story. However, once presented with the same evidence Stillington had presented to Parliament, Henry then decided that a repeal of TR, unread, would best suit his purposes; especially if there was as much confusion then as now about what TR had actually done? Catesby's execution three days after Bosworth, and that line in his will, does look as if he was executed for some other reason than just his support of Richard. His execution may have been the result of a combination of events that included, but wasn't limited to, his part in getting TR through Parliament. We also have to remember that, through his inheritance of lands and manors, his own efforts in acquiring more of the same, and additional gifts of lands from Richard, Catesby was really quite wealthy. I know the Stanleys had been at odds with Hastings over their conflicting claims to influence in the West and Northwest of England, but don't know if Catesby had replaced Hastings as a rival to the Stanley influence. If he had, or the Stanleys feared that he might, that could explain that line: Catesby hadn't done anything against the Stanley interests, and may even have assisted them in some dealings, so why hadn't they helped him? It's Stillington's involvement in the Simnel affair that makes me question the received assessment of it. Here's a man who was a loyal supporter of the legitimate Yorkist succession. He acknowledged Edward V as his father's son, but not Edward's legitimacy. So why support a pretender who wasn't even an illegitimate offspring of Edward or George? It's still only my suspicion, but if Richard could smuggle his nephews out of the Tower without anyone noticing, why couldn't someone else smuggle Edward of Warwick out? Because, I'm sorry, but HT's treatment of the real Lambert Simnel doesn't fit in with the treatment of the other prestender, Perkin Warbeck. If Simnel had been a stand-in for the imprisoned Warwick, why was he executed? Or, at the very least, imprisoned? Instead he's given a job in the Royal Household! If, OTOH, it was the Warwick HT paraded around London who was the pretender that might just explain a lot. Or not. Doug
 
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:

"Re your penultimate paragraph and dates, Carol I stumbled across an entry in the Foedera dated 22 June. It is from Edward (V) summoning to Westminster those who are to be knighted at his coronation. These are on the recommendation of his uncle, the Duke of Gloucester. So whoever issued this on behalf of the new king couldn't have known what was about to happen."

Carol responds:

What happened to those would-be knights, do you know? Did any of them become knights at Richard's coronation? Did any rebel against him (for, presumably, "robbing" them of a knighthood)?

Carol

Doug wrote:

"It's Stillington's involvement in the Simnel affair that makes me question the received assessment of it. Here's a man who was a loyal supporter of the legitimate Yorkist succession. He acknowledged Edward V as his father's son, but not Edward's legitimacy. So why support a pretender who wasn't even an illegitimate offspring of Edward or George?"

Carol responds:

I don't think anyone involved (not only Stillington but, more important, Margaret of York, John, Earl of Lincoln, Viscount Lovell, etc.) really supported the pretender. He was just a figurehead until they could rescue the real Earl of Warwick (who had been in the care and no doubt the training of Lincoln since at least the time when Warwick was knighted at the investment ceremony for Edward, Prince of Wales, in September 1483--before that, he was in the care of Queen Anne Neville, his aunt by both blood and marriage). I suspect that the organizers of the Simnel rebellion had every reason to support the real Earl of Warwick given this background (and none at all to support the illegitimate sons of Edward V, alive or dead, given that they had all supported Richard). Stillington was probably in the same position--and he must genuinely have believed Edward ex-V and his brother to be illegitimate to have taken such a risk at his age, especially given his previous arrest by HT. As for what would have happened to Lambert Simnel, I'm sure he would have been treated kindly but carefully watched. A double for the king could be potentially problematic.

Carol

Carol

Hilary wrote: Doug, see my reply to Nico re the Pre Contract. [I have  very informative it was (DS)]
One thing of course I've never considered was whether Stillington was a Yorkist 'mole'. There's no doubt that in Somerset/Dorset he was in the depths of old Lancastrian/MB/Morton territory; in fact actually he would have been a marvellous 'plant' because people talk to bishops. We know Edward used spies a lot. And he could have put Stillington in the Tower after Clarence's demise to affirm that he wasn't one. What would really help would be to know who the mother of Juliana Hampton was. I think that would explain an awful lot.
But like you, I think that the Simnel affair confirms he was a Yorkist at heart - in fact it's hard to think of a Yorkshireman who betrayed Richard. Even those like Halnath Mauleverer, who'd moved elsewhere, always remained loyal to the end. Doug here: I looked up Stillington's resume and discovered he was Edward's Lord Privy Seal prior to being made Chancellor. And that he was an Archdeacon while serving in the former. A google search got me the information than many Lords Privy Seal had also been at least Archdeacons prior to being promoted to a bishopric, so it's possible Stillington's elevation to Bishop may have been because Edward wanted to promote him to Chancellor? This is not to say that the elevation of a known Yorkist to a See in an region known for its' Lancastrian sympathies didn't also cross Edward's, or someone's, mind! Doug

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 15:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions
Hilary wrote: Absolutely - you should watch Fake or Fortune! Doug here: I've found a bunch of the episodes on Youtube, so I can view them at my leisure there. Apparently they've only been shown here on a PBS station in Chicago and not by the one I have. Hilary concluded:
I thought after I posted that I should have said it seems likely that Stillington was the channel for the information, which as you say, would have had to have come from a very credible source. If he was the 'informant' he really was putting his job on the line - or his head on the block - for the reaction could not be totally anticipated. Doug here: I plan on using channel or conduit from now on when I refer to Stillington and his meetings with the Council and Parliament. Subject, of course, to further information! And I definitely agree that Stillington must have been quite confident about his source/s before he stood up in Council and starting speaking. A charge of lese majeste would have been the least of his worries... FWIW, according to his Wikipedia entry, Stillington held some position in Edward V's government. Do we know what position? Or is the article in error? I ask because if Stillington was already a member of the government, wouldn't that give his presentation(?) a bit more support? If only because it would be obvious the good Bishop wasn't angling for some appointment? Doug

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

Yes he'd also been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI Doug and Edward continued him in the role prior to his becoming a bishop - so it's the other way round. Some might say that was quite a risk as he'd been a great favourite of Henry VI but Edward had an understanding that quite a lot of ambitious people could be bought. Got that wrong with Morton! Also Stillington's family and connections would have been well know to Warwick, so he could have been instrumental in backing the decision.
As I said in my former post, if you look at the early CPRs for Edward's reign there are continual minor problems in the West Country, like abbeys sending funds to Lancastrian supporters, so someone, as you say, with eyes and ears in the region (even if he was not there himself in person all the time) would be immensely useful, particularly since the Bishop of nearby Exeter was a Courtenay. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 9 September 2017, 17:20
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Doug, see my reply to Nico re the Pre Contract. [I have  very informative it was (DS)]
One thing of course I've never considered was whether Stillington was a Yorkist 'mole'. There's no doubt that in Somerset/Dorset he was in the depths of old Lancastrian/MB/Morton territory; in fact actually he would have been a marvellous 'plant' because people talk to bishops. We know Edward used spies a lot. And he could have put Stillington in the Tower after Clarence's demise to affirm that he wasn't one. What would really help would be to know who the mother of Juliana Hampton was. I think that would explain an awful lot.
But like you, I think that the Simnel affair confirms he was a Yorkist at heart - in fact it's hard to think of a Yorkshireman who betrayed Richard. Even those like Halnath Mauleverer, who'd moved elsewhere, always remained loyal to the end. Doug here: I looked up Stillington's resume and discovered he was Edward's Lord Privy Seal prior to being made Chancellor. And that he was an Archdeacon while serving in the former. A google search got me the information than many Lords Privy Seal had also been at least Archdeacons prior to being promoted to a bishopric, so it's possible Stillington's elevation to Bishop may have been because Edward wanted to promote him to Chancellor? This is not to say that the elevation of a known Yorkist to a See in an region known for its' Lancastrian sympathies didn't also cross Edward's, or someone's, mind! Doug

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017, 15:24
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Answer to question about depositions
Hilary wrote: Absolutely - you should watch Fake or Fortune! Doug here: I've found a bunch of the episodes on Youtube, so I can view them at my leisure there. Apparently they've only been shown here on a PBS station in Chicago and not by the one I have. Hilary concluded:
I thought after I posted that I should have said it seems likely that Stillington was the channel for the information, which as you say, would have had to have come from a very credible source. If he was the 'informant' he really was putting his job on the line - or his head on the block - for the reaction could not be totally anticipated. Doug here: I plan on using channel or conduit from now on when I refer to Stillington and his meetings with the Council and Parliament. Subject, of course, to further information! And I definitely agree that Stillington must have been quite confident about his source/s before he stood up in Council and starting speaking. A charge of lese majeste would have been the least of his worries... FWIW, according to his Wikipedia entry, Stillington held some position in Edward V's government. Do we know what position? Or is the article in error? I ask because if Stillington was already a member of the government, wouldn't that give his presentation(?) a bit more support? If only because it would be obvious the good Bishop wasn't angling for some appointment? Doug

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

Nico wrote:

"What really makes me suspicious is the Earl of Lincoln's behavior. After meeting the Earl of Warwick, his reaction is to escape to Flanders and start plotting with Margaret of Burgundy. Perhaps it was immediately obvious to him that he was not the real Warwick."

Carol responds:

I don't think so. We can trace little Warwick's whereabouts fairly easily. After his father's death, he was made the ward of EW's son Dorset. During the Protectorate, when Dorset fled sanctuary, Warwick was placed in the custody of his aunt, Anne Neville. He was knighted at Prince Edward's investment ceremony and then lived at Sheriff Hutton with other unnamed royal children (probably including his sister Margaret) and was more or less Lincoln's protegee. Immediately after Bosworth, he was taken by Tudor's men (along with Margaret?) and placed in Margaret Beaufort's custody before being removed to the Tower. So unless George sent him away and substituted another child before his execution (and before his son's wardship was given to Dorset), the boy in the Tower was the real Warwick (whom Lincoln would have known well). I can only explain Lambert Simnel as a decoy who would be replaced by the real Warwick, who would be rescued from the Tower as soon as Henry was defeated.

And if George succeeded in substituting another child, he fooled not only Henry but Edward, Richard, Anne, Lincoln, and Dorset.

Carol

If George did succeed in substituting Warwick then it would have probably been i 1477/78. He would have been quite young and I doubt whether Richard and Anne would have seen him again until 1483. I don't think that Dorset would have been familiar with the child before he became his ward. What I am trying to get at is the real Warwick could have been sent to Ireland at an early age and the imposter could have been living in Sherriff Hutton with Richard's household. The other scenario could be as you say Lambert Simnel was an imposter used until they could release Warwick from the Tower. I suppose it was possible that if Richard sent the Princes to Burgundy he could have sent Warwick to Ireland around the same time because he would have known that he would have been in as much danger as the Princes.
Mary

Would they realistically have had a good idea of what the two year old looked looked like? Would Anne or Richard have shown up for Christmas pudding and played with their nephew? Anne would probably have pled a headache and stayed home.  
On Sep 11, 2017 1:19 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Nico wrote:

"What really makes me suspicious is the Earl of Lincoln's behavior. After meeting the Earl of Warwick, his reaction is to escape to Flanders and start plotting with Margaret of Burgundy. Perhaps it was immediately obvious to him that he was not the real Warwick."

Carol responds:

I don't think so. We can trace little Warwick's whereabouts fairly easily. After his father's death, he was made the ward of EW's son Dorset. During the Protectorate, when Dorset fled sanctuary, Warwick was placed in the custody of his aunt, Anne Neville. He was knighted at Prince Edward's investment ceremony and then lived at Sheriff Hutton with other unnamed royal children (probably including his sister Margaret) and was more or less Lincoln's protegee. Immediately after Bosworth, he was taken by Tudor's men (along with Margaret?) and placed in Margaret Beaufort's custody before being removed to the Tower. So unless George sent him away and substituted another child before his execution (and before his son's wardship was given to Dorset), the boy in the Tower was the real Warwick (whom Lincoln would have known well). I can only explain Lambert Simnel as a decoy who would be replaced by the real Warwick, who would be rescued from the Tower as soon as Henry was defeated.

And if George succeeded in substituting another child, he fooled not only Henry but Edward, Richard, Anne, Lincoln, and Dorset.

Carol

Swapping children does sound like a plot from Game of Thrones - but then that is loosely based on the Wars of the Roses. It is unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out. It wouldn't have been impossible for Richard to send him to Flanders with the Princes in the Tower, but if Clarence did it in 1477 it would have been easier, as it is unlikely that any of his later guardians knew what he looked like. I don't know what suddenly made Lincoln change his loyalty so suddenly though and I have never understood why none of the family ever spoke up for giving the Earl of Warwick a better deal than a life in the Tower.
Nico



On Monday, 11 September 2017, 18:51:14 GMT+1, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

 

Would they realistically have had a good idea of what the two year old looked looked like? Would Anne or Richard have shown up for Christmas pudding and played with their nephew? Anne would probably have pled a headache and stayed home.  
On Sep 11, 2017 1:19 PM, "justcarol67@... []" <> wrote:
 

Nico wrote:

"What really makes me suspicious is the Earl of Lincoln's behavior. After meeting the Earl of Warwick, his reaction is to escape to Flanders and start plotting with Margaret of Burgundy. Perhaps it was immediately obvious to him that he was not the real Warwick."

Carol responds:

I don't think so. We can trace little Warwick's whereabouts fairly easily. After his father's death, he was made the ward of EW's son Dorset. During the Protectorate, when Dorset fled sanctuary, Warwick was placed in the custody of his aunt, Anne Neville. He was knighted at Prince Edward's investment ceremony and then lived at Sheriff Hutton with other unnamed royal children (probably including his sister Margaret) and was more or less Lincoln's protegee. Immediately after Bosworth, he was taken by Tudor's men (along with Margaret?) and placed in Margaret Beaufort's custody before being removed to the Tower. So unless George sent him away and substituted another child before his execution (and before his son's wardship was given to Dorset), the boy in the Tower was the real Warwick (whom Lincoln would have known well). I can only explain Lambert Simnel as a decoy who would be replaced by the real Warwick, who would be rescued from the Tower as soon as Henry was defeated.

And if George succeeded in substituting another child, he fooled not only Henry but Edward, Richard, Anne, Lincoln, and Dorset.

Carol

Hilary wrote: Yes he'd also been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI Doug and Edward continued him in the role prior to his becoming a bishop - so it's the other way round. Some might say that was quite a risk as he'd been a great favourite of Henry VI but Edward had an understanding that quite a lot of ambitious people could be bought. Got that wrong with Morton! Also Stillington's family and connections would have been well know to Warwick, so he could have been instrumental in backing the decision. Doug here: If I read the chart at Wikipedia correctly, Stillington served as Henry VI's Lord Privy Seal only during the year previous to Edward assuming the throne. Would that really qualify him as a great favourite of Henry's? Of course, when one considers that the Lancastrians had been on the throne for over fifty years, it does seem that there'd be a lot more of well-known Lancastrian supporters available for that post. As you pointed out, Warwick may have had a hand in it. Hilary concluded:
As I said in my former post, if you look at the early CPRs for Edward's reign there are continual minor problems in the West Country, like abbeys sending funds to Lancastrian supporters, so someone, as you say, with eyes and ears in the region (even if he was not there himself in person all the time) would be immensely useful, particularly since the Bishop of nearby Exeter was a Courtenay. Doug here: What do you think of the idea that, because Stillington had been fairly close to the center of things, and Edward being somewhat new at his job, he kept Stillington where he was because Stillington both knew his way around, so to speak, as well as the possibility Warwick had vouched for him? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nicholas wrote: Swapping children does sound like a plot from Game of Thrones - but then that is loosely based on the Wars of the Roses. It is unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out. It wouldn't have been impossible for Richard to send him to Flanders with the Princes in the Tower, but if Clarence did it in 1477 it would have been easier, as it is unlikely that any of his later guardians knew what he looked like. I don't know what suddenly made Lincoln change his loyalty so suddenly though and I have never understood why none of the family ever spoke up for giving the Earl of Warwick a better deal than a life in the Tower. Doug here: Did Warwick even have any family after Bosworth (except for his sister Margaret)? AFAIK, while Warwick was under Richard's care he was kept at Sherriff Hutton and it wasn't until after Bosworth that he was placed in the Tower.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I thought Dorset raised him in the Tower and Richard got him out. Not a prisoner really but I think Edward wanted Clarence's son closely guarded.
On Sep 12, 2017 12:45 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Nicholas wrote: Swapping children does sound like a plot from Game of Thrones - but then that is loosely based on the Wars of the Roses. It is unlikely, but I wouldn't rule it out.  It wouldn't have been impossible for Richard to send him to Flanders with the Princes in the Tower, but if Clarence did it in 1477 it would have been easier, as it is unlikely that any of his later guardians knew what he looked like.   I don't know what suddenly made Lincoln change his loyalty so suddenly though and I have never understood why none of the family ever spoke up for giving the Earl of Warwick a better deal than a life in the Tower.   Doug here: Did Warwick even have any family after Bosworth (except for his sister Margaret)? AFAIK, while Warwick was under Richard's care he was kept at Sherriff Hutton and it wasn't until after Bosworth that he was placed in the Tower.    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, he'd been around Henry's Court a long time:
'In entries in the Calendar of Papal Registers in 1451 and 1452 he's described as a counsellor of Henry King of England' and was granted an indult for life allowing him to visit his archdeaconry or future archdeaconries by deputy and to receive the procurations from them in ready money.
Other evidence that he was a counsellor to Henry VI can be seen in some of his recorded activities. Between December 1450 and February 1452 he served on a number if commissions for the King. In 1456 he was given the canonry and prebendary of St Stephen's, Palace of Westminster and described as Henry's 'clerk and servant'. In 1458 he was given the post of Dean of St Martin le Grand and, two years' later, on 28 July 1460 he was appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal and successor to Lawrence Booth in the Government of Henry VI at a salary of £365 a year, or 20s a day for the duration of the Office. We also know that in October 1460 Henry owed him £600, whether as back salary or as a loan isn't clear; the King was indebted to him in that sum', He must have been wealthy to support this debt.'
(these are bits from an article I once did on him) I think it counteracts arguments that Edward made him rich. He'd already done very well indeed and was a friend of his predecessor as bishop, Beckyngton, some might say a natural successor.
And I agree with your last point. He knew his way round very well, as well as being extremely able. Being at St Martin's was also useful. It was, after all, a sanctuary in London. I would have thought you'd get a lot of 'gossip' there? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 September 2017, 17:39
Subject: Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Yes he'd also been Keeper of the Privy Seal to Henry VI Doug and Edward continued him in the role prior to his becoming a bishop - so it's the other way round. Some might say that was quite a risk as he'd been a great favourite of Henry VI but Edward had an understanding that quite a lot of ambitious people could be bought. Got that wrong with Morton! Also Stillington's family and connections would have been well know to Warwick, so he could have been instrumental in backing the decision. Doug here: If I read the chart at Wikipedia correctly, Stillington served as Henry VI's Lord Privy Seal only during the year previous to Edward assuming the throne. Would that really qualify him as a great favourite of Henry's? Of course, when one considers that the Lancastrians had been on the throne for over fifty years, it does seem that there'd be a lot more of well-known Lancastrian supporters available for that post. As you pointed out, Warwick may have had a hand in it. Hilary concluded:
As I said in my former post, if you look at the early CPRs for Edward's reign there are continual minor problems in the West Country, like abbeys sending funds to Lancastrian supporters, so someone, as you say, with eyes and ears in the region (even if he was not there himself in person all the time) would be immensely useful, particularly since the Bishop of nearby Exeter was a Courtenay. Doug here: What do you think of the idea that, because Stillington had been fairly close to the center of things, and Edward being somewhat new at his job, he kept Stillington where he was because Stillington both knew his way around, so to speak, as well as the possibility Warwick had vouched for him? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Doug, he'd been around Henry's Court a long time: 'In entries in the Calendar of Papal Registers in 1451 and 1452 he's described as a counsellor of Henry King of England' and was granted an indult for life allowing him to visit his archdeaconry or future archdeaconries by deputy and to receive the procurations from them in ready money. Other evidence that he was a counsellor to Henry VI can be seen in some of his recorded activities. Between December 1450 and February 1452 he served on a number if commissions for the King. In 1456 he was given the canonry and prebendary of St Stephen's, Palace of Westminster and described as Henry's 'clerk and servant'. In 1458 he was given the post of Dean of St Martin le Grand and, two years' later, on 28 July 1460 he was appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal and successor to Lawrence Booth in the Government of Henry VI at a salary of £365 a year, or 20s a day for the duration of the Office. We also know that in October 1460 Henry owed him £600, whether as back salary or as a loan isn't clear; the King was indebted to him in that sum', He must have been wealthy to support this debt.' (these are bits from an article I once did on him) I think it counteracts arguments that Edward made him rich. He'd already done very well indeed and was a friend of his predecessor as bishop, Beckyngton, some might say a natural successor. And I agree with your last point. He knew his way round very well, as well as being extremely able. Being at St Martin's was also useful. It was, after all, a sanctuary in London. I would have thought you'd get a lot of 'gossip' there? Doug here: Thank you for all the information about our Bishop! One thing I did note, however, was that it seems to appear that, except for serving on a number of commissions, Stillington held no governmental position until 1460. Is that correct? Might it be better to term Stillington's relationship with Henry, at least until 1460 when he became Lord Privy Seal, as being more of a personal one with Stillington being asked occasionally to do some official business as a personal favor (and rewarded for it)? Or, if not personal in the modern sense, view Stillington as a member of Henry's household, as opposed to an official position? Of course, when it comes to monarchs during this period of history it's not easy to determine the separation between the personal and the official! That description of Stillington as being Henry's clerk and servant leads me to think he might have been in charge of Henry's correspondence, among other duties, which would certainly have given Stillington the experience he needed to serve as Lord Privy Seal. Not to mention other things he might have learned... That last about St. Martin's is interesting, too. As you said, it was a sanctuary and it would make an excellent listening post for the person in charge of it. And we have to remember the concept of a loyal opposition wouldn't develop for over two centuries, if some noble, say, had quietly put the word out he was hiring men, the King's ministers would want to know how many and, especially, what for. Doug

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

Absolutely to all this.
In many ways Henry VI has been as much maligned as his wife (and nearly as much as Richard but for the opposite reason). Stillington seems to have had perhaps the best legal mind of the age so I would guess he was used a bit like we use Parliamentary Permanent Secretaries today (you know, Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister'). They wouldn't necessarily be regarded as disloyal if they transferred to the next regime; they were above all that, or supposedly so :)
What he also shared in common with Henry, Wykeham and Beckyngton and indeed MB was a passion for the founding of schools and colleges - something in which HT had no interest, says a lot. Beckyngton was instrumental in the founding of Eton, Stillington founded his father's school at Acaster, so it wasn't always about politics. But again, you pick up a lot of whispers when you're collecting for a good cause. H


From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 September 2017, 16:37
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Doug, he'd been around Henry's Court a long time: 'In entries in the Calendar of Papal Registers in 1451 and 1452 he's described as a counsellor of Henry King of England' and was granted an indult for life allowing him to visit his archdeaconry or future archdeaconries by deputy and to receive the procurations from them in ready money. Other evidence that he was a counsellor to Henry VI can be seen in some of his recorded activities. Between December 1450 and February 1452 he served on a number if commissions for the King. In 1456 he was given the canonry and prebendary of St Stephen's, Palace of Westminster and described as Henry's 'clerk and servant'. In 1458 he was given the post of Dean of St Martin le Grand and, two years' later, on 28 July 1460 he was appointed Keeper of the Privy Seal and successor to Lawrence Booth in the Government of Henry VI at a salary of £365 a year, or 20s a day for the duration of the Office. We also know that in October 1460 Henry owed him £600, whether as back salary or as a loan isn't clear; the King was indebted to him in that sum', He must have been wealthy to support this debt.' (these are bits from an article I once did on him) I think it counteracts arguments that Edward made him rich. He'd already done very well indeed and was a friend of his predecessor as bishop, Beckyngton, some might say a natural successor. And I agree with your last point. He knew his way round very well, as well as being extremely able. Being at St Martin's was also useful. It was, after all, a sanctuary in London. I would have thought you'd get a lot of 'gossip' there? Doug here: Thank you for all the information about our Bishop! One thing I did note, however, was that it seems to appear that, except for serving on a number of commissions, Stillington held no governmental position until 1460. Is that correct? Might it be better to term Stillington's relationship with Henry, at least until 1460 when he became Lord Privy Seal, as being more of a personal one with Stillington being asked occasionally to do some official business as a personal favor (and rewarded for it)? Or, if not personal in the modern sense, view Stillington as a member of Henry's household, as opposed to an official position? Of course, when it comes to monarchs during this period of history it's not easy to determine the separation between the personal and the official! That description of Stillington as being Henry's clerk and servant leads me to think he might have been in charge of Henry's correspondence, among other duties, which would certainly have given Stillington the experience he needed to serve as Lord Privy Seal. Not to mention other things he might have learned... That last about St. Martin's is interesting, too. As you said, it was a sanctuary and it would make an excellent listening post for the person in charge of it. And we have to remember the concept of a loyal opposition wouldn't develop for over two centuries, if some noble, say, had quietly put the word out he was hiring men, the King's ministers would want to know how many and, especially, what for. Doug

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

Karen wrote:

"Would they realistically have had a good idea of what the two year old looked looked like? Would Anne or Richard have shown up for Christmas pudding and played with their nephew? Anne would probably have pled a headache and stayed home." Carol responds:

The Edward of Warwick that Richard and Anne took into their custody would be the one who had been Dorset's ward, given to Dorset by Edward IV. I suspect that Edward would have made absolutely certain that he was the right child. Certainly, his sister Margaret, not quite twelve at the time, would have been able to identify her brother. And, of course, the attainder accuses George of plotting to send his son outside the country, not actually doing it, so it seems that the plot was thwarted in the planning stages.

Carol

Carol,You are right about the identity of Warwick. Also the fact that Simnel was crowned Edward VI in Dublin seems to rule out his being or being passed off as Edward V.
The actions of Lincoln may be better explained if we do not assume that he knew all we know now. If he assumed that Henry would have eliminated Warwick, he may just have been surprised that he could be shown alive by Henry.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

David, that is a good point. We don't know what Lincoln knew or had been told, and he could have been surprised that Warwick was actually alive.
As for the coronation, it can't have been Edward V, because Lambert Simnel was crowned as Edward VI. It was the religious element of the coronation vows that made me think that he was the person they intended as King.
Nico
On Thursday, 14 September 2017, 23:00:23 GMT+1, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

 

Carol,

You are right about the identity of Warwick. Also the fact that Simnel was crowned Edward VI in Dublin seems to rule out his being or being passed off as Edward V.
The actions of Lincoln may be better explained if we do not assume that he knew all we know now. If he assumed that Henry would have eliminated Warwick, he may just have been surprised that he could be shown alive by Henry.
Regards David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Hilary, Thank you for the vote of confidence in my reasonings! I hadn't really thought about it, but if only because the clergy (upper clergy at least) was educated, it would be natural to have them form the skeleton of any government. Of course I knew that applied to earlier periods, but I have no idea why I didn't realize it still would in our period. I would think that Stillington's legal mind would have been very useful in drawing up the documents needed to establish schools, especially their financing, so that may have been what Henry VI appreciated in his clerk and servant. And, as per your last sentence, getting donations would require tact and an ability to ingratiate oneself with the prospective donor. And while that was happening... Doug Hilary wrote: Absolutely to all this.
In many ways Henry VI has been as much maligned as his wife (and nearly as much as Richard but for the opposite reason). Stillington seems to have had perhaps the best legal mind of the age so I would guess he was used a bit like we use Parliamentary Permanent Secretaries today (you know, Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister'). They wouldn't necessarily be regarded as disloyal if they transferred to the next regime; they were above all that, or supposedly so :)
What he also shared in common with Henry, Wykeham and Beckyngton and indeed MB was a passion for the founding of schools and colleges - something in which HT had no interest, says a lot. Beckyngton was instrumental in the founding of Eton, Stillington founded his father's school at Acaster, so it wasn't always about politics. But again, you pick up a lot of whispers when you're collecting for a good cause.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Yes Doug. Actually by 'our' period priests at Oxbridge were trained as much in canon law as the scriptures, which is why a lot of them went there. It opened a way to a double career and you were rather usefully immune to punishment by the state, although that immunity could be over-ruled if you were treasonous like Scrope or Langstrother. Another reason to think that Stillington's crimewhich put him in the Tower cannot have been so bad or Edward would not have hesitated in giving him the Langstrother treatment. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 September 2017, 18:41
Subject: Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary, Thank you for the vote of confidence in my reasonings! I hadn't really thought about it, but if only because the clergy (upper clergy at least) was educated, it would be natural to have them form the skeleton of any government. Of course I knew that applied to earlier periods, but I have no idea why I didn't realize it still would in our period. I would think that Stillington's legal mind would have been very useful in drawing up the documents needed to establish schools, especially their financing, so that may have been what Henry VI appreciated in his clerk and servant. And, as per your last sentence, getting donations would require tact and an ability to ingratiate oneself with the prospective donor. And while that was happening... Doug Hilary wrote: Absolutely to all this.
In many ways Henry VI has been as much maligned as his wife (and nearly as much as Richard but for the opposite reason). Stillington seems to have had perhaps the best legal mind of the age so I would guess he was used a bit like we use Parliamentary Permanent Secretaries today (you know, Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister'). They wouldn't necessarily be regarded as disloyal if they transferred to the next regime; they were above all that, or supposedly so :)
What he also shared in common with Henry, Wykeham and Beckyngton and indeed MB was a passion for the founding of schools and colleges - something in which HT had no interest, says a lot. Beckyngton was instrumental in the founding of Eton, Stillington founded his father's school at Acaster, so it wasn't always about politics. But again, you pick up a lot of whispers when you're collecting for a good cause.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nicholas wrote: David, that is a good point. We don't know what Lincoln knew or had been told, and he could have been surprised that Warwick was actually alive. As for the coronation, it can't have been Edward V, because Lambert Simnel was crowned as Edward VI. It was the religious element of the coronation vows that made me think that he was the person they intended as King. Doug here: And it's your last sentence that causes me to think that it was Warwick in Dublin. We have these faithful Catholics supporting someone they knew not to be the actual king, to the point of having him swear various oaths at the ceremony. More importantly, did the coronation ceremony include an anointing? Because we are then supposed to believe that these good Catholics conspired to have someone risk his soul, and theirs by the way, by participation in a ceremony with deep religious meaning  all the while knowing the person making the oaths, even being anointed, was an imposter. And what if Henry had eliminated Warwick prior to the rebels being able to make the necessary switch? What happens then? The deposition of Lambert Simnel? Or a second coronation of an imposter in Westminster? The only person's word we have that the person paraded about London was Warwick is that of Henry Tudor and his hangers-on. Frankly, that's not enough. We also have rumors well before the coronation in Dublin that Warwick had escaped from the Tower. I don't know if Tudor ever even denied them, per se; his parading of someone he claimed to be Warwick may have been his only response. There's also a possibility that Simnel was substituted for Warwick by the rebels as part of his escape, with the substitution occurring in the Tower at some point shortly before Warwick's escape  the substitution being designed to give Warwick, and his rescuers, time to get out of London before anyone knew he was missing. Personally, I've never understood the reasoning that says the rebels had to have a figurehead for their actions. Margaret of Anjou's figurehead, aka Henry VI, was in the Tower when she led a rebellion to put him back on the throne. The proclaimed intention of Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, yet Edward remained in the Tower throughout the entire affair (as far as we know, anyway). So why was a stand-in for Edward of Warwick so desperately necessary as to require the swearing of false oaths and possibly the anointing of an imposter? OTOH, if we presume it was Warwick being crowned in Dublin, then all those questions are resolved. As I've said before, the only person who needed, in fact desperately needed a stand-in if they didn't have the real Warwick at hand, was Henry Tudor. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Yes Doug. Actually by 'our' period priests at Oxbridge were trained as much in canon law as the scriptures, which is why a lot of them went there. It opened a way to a double career and you were rather usefully immune to punishment by the state, although that immunity could be over-ruled if you were treasonous like Scrope or Langstrother. Another reason to think that Stillington's crimewhich put him in the Tower cannot have been so bad or Edward would not have hesitated in giving him the Langstrother treatment. Doug here: As you wrote in another post, these clergy were more on the lines of a (semi)permanent bureaucracy, they remained in place while Chancellors and such came and went. I wonder if the period of imprisonment under Edward IV wasn't more of a form of preventive detention until Edward could discover how much, if anything, Stillington knew about George's, um, affairs? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote:

"As I've said before, the only person who needed, in fact desperately needed a stand-in if they didn't have the real Warwick at hand, was Henry Tudor."

Carol responds:

I'm absolutely certain that Henry believed that the child he captured after Bosworth and later sent to the Tower (not to mention executed later) was the real Warwick. I'm also certain that Richard believed the boy he knighted at his son's investiture as Prince of Wales was the real Warwick. And there would have been no need to exclude him from the kingship in TR/the petition of the Three Estates if he were an (unwitting) imposter--just expose the fraud then and there. (Certainly, if the Earl of Lincoln knew of it--and he had worked closely with the boy at Sheriff Hutton), Richard would have known of it.

Now that Marie is back, I'd like to hear her take on all this (once she's had time to catch up with the whole thread). I'd also like to know, if possible, where Edward of Warwick's sister Margaret was while Edward was in Dorset's custody. She is the person most likely to recognize her real brother, and she certainly behaved as if the young man executed by HT was really Warwick.

Carol

Carol








--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner http://www.mailscanner.info/, and is
believed to be clean.

I am always agreeing with you Doug. If another baby was substituted shortly after Isabelle's death then  little sister, grandma, and uncles and auntie's unless they were intimately acquainted with the original could not tell the difference, at least in infancy.   Is this really why George was killed.? I agree that to have a full coronation of an imposter they knew was an imposter is unbelievable. JAH thinks George made the switch.
On Sep 17, 2017 11:58 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Nicholas wrote: David, that is a good point.  We don't know what Lincoln knew or had been told, and he could have been surprised that Warwick was actually alive. As for the coronation, it can't have been Edward V, because Lambert Simnel was crowned as Edward VI.  It was the religious element of the coronation vows that made me think that he was the person they intended as King.   Doug here: And it's your last sentence that causes me to think that it was Warwick in Dublin. We have these faithful Catholics supporting someone they knew not to be the actual king, to the point of having him swear various oaths at the ceremony. More importantly, did the coronation ceremony include an anointing? Because we are then supposed to believe that these good Catholics conspired to have someone risk his soul, and theirs by the way, by participation in a ceremony with deep religious meaning  all the while knowing the person making the oaths, even being anointed,  was an imposter. And what if Henry had eliminated Warwick prior to the rebels being able to make the necessary switch? What happens then? The deposition of Lambert Simnel? Or a second coronation of an imposter in Westminster? The only person's word we have that the person paraded about London was Warwick is that of Henry Tudor and his hangers-on. Frankly, that's not enough. We also have rumors well before the coronation in Dublin that Warwick had escaped from the Tower. I don't know if Tudor ever even denied them, per se; his parading of someone he claimed to be Warwick may have been his only response. There's also a possibility that Simnel was substituted for Warwick by the rebels as part of his escape, with the substitution occurring in the Tower at some point shortly before Warwick's escape  the substitution being designed to give Warwick, and his rescuers, time to get out of London before anyone knew he was missing. Personally, I've never understood the reasoning that says the rebels had to have a figurehead for their actions. Margaret of Anjou's figurehead, aka Henry VI, was in the Tower when she led a rebellion to put him back on the throne. The proclaimed intention of Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, yet Edward remained in the Tower throughout the entire affair (as far as we know, anyway). So why was a stand-in for Edward of Warwick so desperately necessary as to require the swearing of false oaths and possibly the anointing of an imposter? OTOH, if we presume it was Warwick being crowned in Dublin, then all those questions are resolved. As I've said before, the only person who needed, in fact desperately needed a stand-in if they didn't have the real Warwick at hand, was Henry Tudor. Doug    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Good point. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 17 September 2017, 17:07
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Yes Doug. Actually by 'our' period priests at Oxbridge were trained as much in canon law as the scriptures, which is why a lot of them went there. It opened a way to a double career and you were rather usefully immune to punishment by the state, although that immunity could be over-ruled if you were treasonous like Scrope or Langstrother. Another reason to think that Stillington's crimewhich put him in the Tower cannot have been so bad or Edward would not have hesitated in giving him the Langstrother treatment. Doug here: As you wrote in another post, these clergy were more on the lines of a (semi)permanent bureaucracy, they remained in place while Chancellors and such came and went. I wonder if the period of imprisonment under Edward IV wasn't more of a form of preventive detention until Edward could discover how much, if anything, Stillington knew about George's, um, affairs? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug wrote: I've never understood the reasoning that says the rebels had to have a figurehead for their actions. Margaret of Anjou's figurehead, aka Henry VI, was in the Tower when she led a rebellion to put him back on the throne. The proclaimed intention of Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, yet Edward remained in the Tower throughout the entire affair (as far as we know, anyway). So why was a stand-in for Edward of Warwick so desperately necessary as to require the swearing of false oaths and possibly the anointing of an imposter?
I have always questioned the 'stalking horse' and 'figurehead' theory. If the scheme succeeded, it would certainly cause complications if you crown one person, then switch them with someone else, as only a small number of supporters would have been in on the secret. A lot of people would really be turned off by such a deception, and the involvement of a solemn religious ceremony would add a blasphemous element to it. A boy king being deserted by his former supporters is not an auspicious way to start a reign.
If Warwick did escape, that would have been very disturbing for HT, so a substitution for him was an excellent solution for him. At time of no birth certificates or DNA tests, you really could strip away someone's identity, and bestow it on someone else if the person was young enough. His sister Margaret would certainly be aware of the changeling, but she may have said nothing to protect her brother's interests. Anne Beauchamp may have felt the same way. The rumours about Warwick's mental capacity are also interesting here. Someone of normal intelligence would inevitably become frustrated in the Tower and tell the truth to anyone he came into contact with and the story would leak out. However, if Henry chose a child with a learning disability, he may have even have managed to convince him with a story that he really was Warwick; alternatively, the child could have been was too confused to protest effectively.

I have no doubt that Richard and Anne genuinely believed that they were raising the actual Warwick, and if the substitution was made by HT they would have been. If it was Clarence who made the substitution successfully, Warwick would have been no older that 2 at the time and young children's appearance can change quickly, or they may never have seen him at all. His sister would only have been about 4, so she could have been deceived too, especially if the children were separated for a while. I think we had a discussion on another thread about Jehan le Sage, a boy who lived at Margaret of Burgundy's Binche Estate, and whose identity and status was never made clear. If Clarence succeeded in sending Warwick to Ireland, as J-AH proposes in 1477, he could have remained there before being sent to MofB in the autumn of 1478. Jehan remained at Binche before mysteriously and suddenly disappearing from Margaret's accounts shortly before the Simnel conspiracy became known. It could be something else, and Anne Wroe suspected he may have been a young Perkin Warbeck, but the timeline and the fact that Lambert was alleged to have said that his real name was John when he was captured at Stoke, makes me think they could have been the same boy.
Nico



On Sunday, 17 September 2017, 19:39:16 GMT+1, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

 

I am always agreeing with you Doug. If another baby was substituted shortly after Isabelle's death then  little sister, grandma, and uncles and auntie's unless they were intimately acquainted with the original could not tell the difference, at least in infancy.   Is this really why George was killed.? I agree that to have a full coronation of an imposter they knew was an imposter is unbelievable. JAH thinks George made the switch.
On Sep 17, 2017 11:58 AM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Nicholas wrote: David, that is a good point.  We don't know what Lincoln knew or had been told, and he could have been surprised that Warwick was actually alive. As for the coronation, it can't have been Edward V, because Lambert Simnel was crowned as Edward VI.  It was the religious element of the coronation vows that made me think that he was the person they intended as King.   Doug here: And it's your last sentence that causes me to think that it was Warwick in Dublin. We have these faithful Catholics supporting someone they knew not to be the actual king, to the point of having him swear various oaths at the ceremony. More importantly, did the coronation ceremony include an anointing? Because we are then supposed to believe that these good Catholics conspired to have someone risk his soul, and theirs by the way, by participation in a ceremony with deep religious meaning  all the while knowing the person making the oaths, even being anointed,  was an imposter. And what if Henry had eliminated Warwick prior to the rebels being able to make the necessary switch? What happens then? The deposition of Lambert Simnel? Or a second coronation of an imposter in Westminster? The only person's word we have that the person paraded about London was Warwick is that of Henry Tudor and his hangers-on. Frankly, that's not enough. We also have rumors well before the coronation in Dublin that Warwick had escaped from the Tower. I don't know if Tudor ever even denied them, per se; his parading of someone he claimed to be Warwick may have been his only response. There's also a possibility that Simnel was substituted for Warwick by the rebels as part of his escape, with the substitution occurring in the Tower at some point shortly before Warwick's escape  the substitution being designed to give Warwick, and his rescuers, time to get out of London before anyone knew he was missing. Personally, I've never understood the reasoning that says the rebels had to have a figurehead for their actions. Margaret of Anjou's figurehead, aka Henry VI, was in the Tower when she led a rebellion to put him back on the throne. The proclaimed intention of Buckingham's Rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, yet Edward remained in the Tower throughout the entire affair (as far as we know, anyway). So why was a stand-in for Edward of Warwick so desperately necessary as to require the swearing of false oaths and possibly the anointing of an imposter? OTOH, if we presume it was Warwick being crowned in Dublin, then all those questions are resolved. As I've said before, the only person who needed, in fact desperately needed a stand-in if they didn't have the real Warwick at hand, was Henry Tudor. Doug    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote: Good point. in reply to my: As you wrote in another post, these clergy were more on the lines of a (semi)permanent bureaucracy, they remained in place while Chancellors and such came and went. I wonder if the period of imprisonment under Edward IV wasn't more of a form of preventive detention until Edward could discover how much, if anything, Stillington knew about George's, um, affairs? and the thought just occurred to me: Who else, if anyone, was imprisoned at that time? Because it might help sort things out if we had other persons of interest to look into. We know Stillington was considered to be friendly to George, were there any others, a person (or people) who might have whispered into George's ears what George may have wanted to hear: That it should be George sitting on the throne. Wasn't George situated in an area of England known for its' Lancastrian sympathies? And wasn't one of the charges against George that of claiming the throne because of that agreement with Warwick (and MoA?) setting George in line to the throne behind the Lancastrian Prince of Wales and now most conveniently for George, defunct? Because it also crossed my mind that, say, should there be a goodly number of known pro-Lancastrians in George's household, as well as among his tenants and neighbors, then perhaps the charges against George were really all there was to the matter and Edward's reluctance to have George executed was never because Edward had discovered George knew nothing the Pre-Contract but, rather, because Edward had clipped George's wings, making it impossible for him to cause any further trouble. After all, it had only been 5 or 6 years since Edward had regained the throne, but that would have been enough time, or so it seems to me, for disenchantment with Edward, and especially his Woodville relations, to take form. Even if an attempt by George to take the throne was overcome, what would happen if had George allied himself with the Scots? Or the French to bolster those efforts? Have you, in your tracing of familial relationships, discovered anything that might support the idea that George may have been trying to put together an alliance of anti-Woodville Yorkists and Lancastrians, with the aim of making yet another try for the throne? Or is all the above merely me being unable to believe that there's absolutely no way George could have quiet about the Pre-Contract had he know about it? Doug Who has to get that biography of George! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Oh yes Doug. Certainly there were people in the rebellions and at Bosworth for HT who had been in George's household. I'll come back with the detail.
As has been said before, Edward was quite clever in putting George in Farleigh; it was right in the middle of a nest of Lancastrian vipers so he was effectively set up, hemmed in and not much loved. This is of course also Morton and Stillington territory so there would be a logic in giving Stillington a grilling (be he mole or not) to find out just what had been going on. George didn't fare much better at Warwick (though he was popular in Warwickshire and Coventry generally) because, as we know, there were people there who thought Anne Beauchamp had been roughly treated by Edward and Beauchamp influence also spread into Worcestershire and the South West.
As I said to Nico, I think some of the characters in this and the Wayte quest will bump into one another. H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 September 2017, 15:17
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Answer to question about depositions

Hilary wrote: Good point. in reply to my: As you wrote in another post, these clergy were more on the lines of a (semi)permanent bureaucracy, they remained in place while Chancellors and such came and went. I wonder if the period of imprisonment under Edward IV wasn't more of a form of preventive detention until Edward could discover how much, if anything, Stillington knew about George's, um, affairs? and the thought just occurred to me: Who else, if anyone, was imprisoned at that time? Because it might help sort things out if we had other persons of interest to look into. We know Stillington was considered to be friendly to George, were there any others, a person (or people) who might have whispered into George's ears what George may have wanted to hear: That it should be George sitting on the throne. Wasn't George situated in an area of England known for its' Lancastrian sympathies? And wasn't one of the charges against George that of claiming the throne because of that agreement with Warwick (and MoA?) setting George in line to the throne behind the Lancastrian Prince of Wales and now most conveniently for George, defunct? Because it also crossed my mind that, say, should there be a goodly number of known pro-Lancastrians in George's household, as well as among his tenants and neighbors, then perhaps the charges against George were really all there was to the matter and Edward's reluctance to have George executed was never because Edward had discovered George knew nothing the Pre-Contract but, rather, because Edward had clipped George's wings, making it impossible for him to cause any further trouble. After all, it had only been 5 or 6 years since Edward had regained the throne, but that would have been enough time, or so it seems to me, for disenchantment with Edward, and especially his Woodville relations, to take form. Even if an attempt by George to take the throne was overcome, what would happen if had George allied himself with the Scots? Or the French to bolster those efforts? Have you, in your tracing of familial relationships, discovered anything that might support the idea that George may have been trying to put together an alliance of anti-Woodville Yorkists and Lancastrians, with the aim of making yet another try for the throne? Or is all the above merely me being unable to believe that there's absolutely no way George could have quiet about the Pre-Contract had he know about it? Doug Who has to get that biography of George! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen, I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I don't think there was any substitution done before 1486/87, but rather, while Lambert Simnel was substituted for Edward of Warwick, the substitution was carried out in London by Henry Tudor, and not in Dublin by Lincoln et al. IOW, there most definitely was a fake Edward of Warwick and Lambert Simnel did pretend to be Edward  only he was acting under the orders of, and for the benefit of, Henry Tudor. FWIW, it's my view that George died because he'd tried, or at least planned, once too often to make a grab for the throne. I tend to think Edward hadn't planned to have George executed, simply placed completely in Edward's power. The Attainder stripped George of his lands and barred him, and his children, from the succession. Edward of Warwick retained some lands; inherited, I believe, from his mother (I could be mistaken about these). At any rate, without money, or lands to use to raise any, George no longer posed any threat to Edward. Unfortunately for George, Edward had, in modern terms, oversold the threat George had posed and Edward found it all but impossible to ignore Parliament, which was pushing to rid the country of the danger a living George represented. Nor is it impossible that the Woodvilles, for reasons having nothing to do with the Pre-Contract, may have encouraged Parliament. George supposedly had some document that made him the legal Lancastrian heir if Edward of Lancaster (killed at Tewksbury) died without issue. Such a claim would devolve on his son and it could very well be that was the reason George may have planned to slip his son out of the country. In his disordered mental state after the deaths of his wife and child, deaths which George claimed to have been deliberate, he may very well have believed both he and his son were in danger of their lives, possibly because of that Lancastrian claim, and decided that he wasn't going to go without a fight. The problem with the idea that George had succeeded in sending his son overseas is: Why wasn't Edward returned to England after George's execution? True, he wouldn't have become the next Duke of Clarence, but he was in no danger, regardless of any possible fears George may have had. There would have been absolutely no reason for Margaret of Burgundy to not return her nephew to the care of her brother the King. In fact, not doing so could have been viewed as believing George was telling the truth when he said his son was in danger of his life. Doug Karen wrote: I am always agreeing with you Doug. If another baby was substituted shortly after Isabelle's death then little sister, grandma, and uncles and auntie's unless they were intimately acquainted with the original could not tell the difference, at least in infancy. Is this really why George was killed.? I agree that to have a full coronation of an imposter they knew was an imposter is unbelievable. JAH thinks George made the switch.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Someone commented that little Margaret would have recognized her brother. Not if he was sent away as an infant.So you believe Warwick escaped, was crowned.in Dublin, and a panicked Henry substituted another? All very confusing.
On Sep 19, 2017 12:22 PM, "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <> wrote:
 

    Karen, I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. I don't think there was any substitution done before 1486/87, but rather, while Lambert Simnel was substituted for Edward of Warwick, the substitution was carried out in London by Henry Tudor, and not in Dublin by Lincoln et al. IOW, there most definitely was a fake Edward of Warwick and Lambert Simnel did pretend to be Edward  only he was acting under the orders of, and for the benefit of, Henry Tudor. FWIW, it's my view that George died because he'd tried, or at least planned, once too often to make a grab for the throne. I tend to think Edward hadn't planned to have George executed, simply placed completely in Edward's power. The Attainder stripped George of his lands and barred him, and his children, from the succession. Edward of Warwick retained some lands; inherited, I believe, from his mother (I could be mistaken about these). At any rate, without money, or lands to use to raise any, George no longer posed any threat to Edward. Unfortunately for George, Edward had, in modern terms, oversold the threat George had posed and Edward found it all but impossible to ignore Parliament, which was pushing to rid the country of the danger a living George represented. Nor is it impossible that the Woodvilles, for reasons having nothing to do with the Pre-Contract, may have encouraged Parliament. George supposedly had some document that made him the legal Lancastrian heir if Edward of Lancaster (killed at Tewksbury) died without issue. Such a claim would devolve on his son and it could very well be that was the reason George may have planned to slip his son out of the country. In his disordered mental state after the deaths of his wife and child, deaths which George claimed to have been deliberate, he may very well have believed both he and his son were in danger of their lives, possibly because of that Lancastrian claim, and decided that he wasn't going to go without a fight. The problem with the idea that George had succeeded in sending his son overseas is: Why wasn't Edward returned to England after George's execution? True, he wouldn't have become the next Duke of Clarence, but he was in no danger, regardless of any possible fears George may have had. There would have been absolutely no reason for Margaret of Burgundy to not return her nephew to the care of her brother the King. In fact, not doing so could have been viewed as believing George was telling the truth when he said his son was in danger of his life. Doug   Karen wrote: I am always agreeing with you Doug. If another baby was substituted shortly after Isabelle's death then  little sister, grandma, and uncles and auntie's unless they were intimately acquainted with the original could not tell the difference, at least in infancy.    Is this really why George was killed.? I agree that to have a full coronation of an imposter they knew was an imposter is unbelievable. JAH thinks George made the switch.    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen wrote: Someone commented that little Margaret would have recognized her brother. Not if he was sent away as an infant. So you believe Warwick escaped, was crowned.in Dublin, and a panicked Henry substituted another? All very confusing. Doug here: Margaret was only two years older than her brother. As he was born in February 1475, and his father was executed in February of 1477, Edward would have been two years old and his sister four. After the death of Isabel and their father's arrest, I understand they were taken in by Queen Anne and ended up at Sherriff Hutton. For Edward to have been spirited away, regardless of whether to Ireland or Burgundy, the substitution would have had to have occurred sometime before George's arrest. Which would have been when Edward was, literally, still an infant. I realize times were different, but still, to have managed to send the son of a Royal Duke off, with all the necessary bag and baggage and have no one notice? It may very well have been that it was the making of those arrangements that tipped Edward, or someone, off as to what George was up to. And we have to remember the charge against George wasn't his having tried to send his son abroad without the King's permission, but that George was planning to do so. FWIW, I found the Wikipedia article on Lambert Simnel to be extremely, um, interesting? To be frank, if the contents of that article were to be posted here, it would be torn to shreds  and not just because of its being a rehash the Tudor spin about the 1487 rebellion! Doug Who did discover from that article that Lincoln supposedly told Margaret of Burgundy that he had helped Warwick escape  no citation of course!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Doug, I think that after Clarence was executed Edward of Warwick was given to Thomas Grey,Marquis of Dorset as his ward. It was when Anne came to London in 1483 that she took him in to her household. Not sure about Margaret being in her household. She probably was but I have never read anything to say that. If this is correct poor Warwick, what a confusing start to his life and that doesn't take into account that he might have been sent to Ireland.
Mary