Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2017-12-28 14:44:27
nico11238

Doug wrote:

Doug wrote: Who Margaret actually supported seems to me to boil down to when the rumors were spread and, even more importantly, by whom... I rule out Richard because he'd promised their mother he'd take care of the boys and Elizabeth Woodville's later actions support the view that Richard did. That would leave Morton or Buckingham as likely originators of the rumor. And for either of them, once again, timing would have been all. I firmly believe the original intention of those involved was to restore Edward to the throne, possibly with Buckingham assuming a Kingmaker role. In that case, rumors about the boys' deaths would be disastrous! Supposing Buckingham decided to use the rebellion as a means for him to get throne, then the rumors make sense.

What did Buckingham have to offer Margaret that was better than Henry becoming the brother-in-law of the king?

Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours, but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V.
As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard.
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B.
A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her.
Nico


Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2017-12-29 18:50:03
ricard1an
So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial!
Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard?
I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards her just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2017-12-31 01:43:15
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2017-12-31 10:14:59
Hilary Jones
I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know.
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2017-12-31 13:54:21
Nicholas Brown
There really is so much to consider. Collins made some convincing arguments about Anthony Woodville's behaviour, especially that petition for control of the future Edward V. It may not have been a murder plot, but the evidence suggests that Edward had been ill for some time and his condition was worsening, and AW was desperate to maintain control. Nevertheless, there is something about the AW's behaviour that is open to interpretation as 'imagining the death of the King.' There has been some speculation about Edward having diabetes, which could well have been the case as he was overweight, and the vomiting after meals (gastroparesis) is a common symptom of diabetes. If Edward had complications of diabetes, he would have been vulnerable to infections, which at the time would have been life threatening, so AW had to be prepared.
I can't remember the bit about Buckingham (I read Collins a few years ago, but will try to check it again), but the point you make about him meeting Richard in Northampton is interesting, because Richard and Buckingham don't appear to have had much previous contact. However, as Hilary mentions, something doesn't seem quite right about a Buckingham-Woodville alliance, given the rivalry between their families and the accounts that Buckingham resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville and considered the Woodvilles inferior. However, the latter point may have been exaggerated and Doug may be right that Buckingham may have been tempted by a 'Kingmaker' role. If there was a Woodville-Buckingham plot, why did Buckingham abandon Edward? Maybe he had some respect for AW and was willing to work with him, but not the Marquis of Dorset, who would have taken over as Edward V chief guardian. However, after Edward died it is more likely that Buckingham thought it in his best interests to betray AW to Richard, possibly revealing what he knew about the precontract and told him that Stillington had the proof. If there was some collusion between AW and Buckingham, and Richard discovered that that Buckingham was in deeper than he had disclosed, that could be another reason for the rift. (Hilary and Doug's suggestions about him setting up Hastings and Buckingham's ambitions exceeding his talents with him being angry at being pushed aside by the House of York yet again are equally plausible.) It could have been more than one of these factors that turned Buckingham into 'the most untrue' creature, and it really is so difficult to see how he 'fits in' to the overall picture, and for me anyway, the mystery of Buckingham's motivations extends to MB, given the historical links between the two of them. While I don't rule it out, a Woodville-Buckingham alliance complicates a murky picture further, and it could have been simply the precontract that Buckingham revealed.

Doug wrote:While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it...Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned?
Some people must have known about the pre-contract, but in Edward's reign it would have been confined to certain circles, but once the Woodvilles knew of it, they would be very aftraid of the news spreading or being taken seriously. For this reason, Buckingham had much to fear since he was so closely related to Eleanor that it is more probable than not that he knew. If Edward V was restored to the throne, the Woodvilles would most likely have found an excuse to hasten his demise, as well as anyone else who was likely to know, including MB. Ankaret Twyhno and the possible 'victims' suggested by J-AH come to mind. I'm not sure what difference being crowned would make. Since previous anointed Kings, such as Edward II and Henry VI, had been deposed, if Edward V's illegitimacy were revealed at any time, he was vulnerable.
Wishing every one a Happy New Year,
Nico



On Friday, 29 December 2017, 18:50:07 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial!


Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard?
I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards her just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.

Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2017-12-31 13:54:51
Nicholas Brown


On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 13:53:35 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

There really is so much to consider. Collins made some convincing arguments about Anthony Woodville's behaviour, especially that petition for control of the future Edward V. It may not have been a murder plot, but the evidence suggests that Edward had been ill for some time and his condition was worsening, and AW was desperate to maintain control. Nevertheless, there is something about the AW's behaviour that is open to interpretation as 'imagining the death of the King.' There has been some speculation about Edward having diabetes, which could well have been the case as he was overweight, and the vomiting after meals (gastroparesis) is a common symptom of diabetes. If Edward had complications of diabetes, he would have been vulnerable to infections, which at the time would have been life threatening, so AW had to be prepared.
I can't remember the bit about Buckingham (I read Collins a few years ago, but will try to check it again), but the point you make about him meeting Richard in Northampton is interesting, because Richard and Buckingham don't appear to have had much previous contact. However, as Hilary mentions, something doesn't seem quite right about a Buckingham-Woodville alliance, given the rivalry between their families and the accounts that Buckingham resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville and considered the Woodvilles inferior. However, the latter point may have been exaggerated and Doug may be right that Buckingham may have been tempted by a 'Kingmaker' role. If there was a Woodville-Buckingham plot, why did Buckingham abandon Edward? Maybe he had some respect for AW and was willing to work with him, but not the Marquis of Dorset, who would have taken over as Edward V chief guardian. However, after Edward died it is more likely that Buckingham thought it in his best interests to betray AW to Richard, possibly revealing what he knew about the precontract and told him that Stillington had the proof. If there was some collusion between AW and Buckingham, and Richard discovered that that Buckingham was in deeper than he had disclosed, that could be another reason for the rift. (Hilary and Doug's suggestions about him setting up Hastings and Buckingham's ambitions exceeding his talents with him being angry at being pushed aside by the House of York yet again are equally plausible.) It could have been more than one of these factors that turned Buckingham into 'the most untrue' creature, and it really is so difficult to see how he 'fits in' to the overall picture, and for me anyway, the mystery of Buckingham's motivations extends to MB, given the historical links between the two of them. While I don't rule it out, a Woodville-Buckingham alliance complicates a murky picture further, and it could have been simply the precontract that Buckingham revealed.

Doug wrote:While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it...Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned?
Some people must have known about the pre-contract, but in Edward's reign it would have been confined to certain circles, but once the Woodvilles knew of it, they would be very aftraid of the news spreading or being taken seriously. For this reason, Buckingham had much to fear since he was so closely related to Eleanor that it is more probable than not that he knew. If Edward V was restored to the throne, the Woodvilles would most likely have found an excuse to hasten his demise, as well as anyone else who was likely to know, including MB. Ankaret Twyhno and the possible 'victims' suggested by J-AH come to mind. I'm not sure what difference being crowned would make. Since previous anointed Kings, such as Edward II and Henry VI, had been deposed, if Edward V's illegitimacy were revealed at any time, he was vulnerable.
Wishing every one a Happy New Year,
Nico



On Friday, 29 December 2017, 18:50:07 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial!


Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard?
I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards her just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-01 03:04:50
Doug Stamate
Mary, I had to go digging in my old motoring atlas, but I came with the following: 1) Going from Ludlow to London would either mean heading towards Gloucester and then take the road based on, I think, Watling Street to London or else head east/southeast and catch the main north/south road at Northampton. Possibly via Conventry? 2) Going from Brecon to London would mean crossing the Severn at Gloucester and then take the road based on Watling Street to London. 3) Going from York to London would mean taking the main north/south road that passed through Northampton. So, presuming I've gotten my geography correct, Richard passing through Northampton would have been a given. Edward's party passing through that town would have been, if not a given, certainly a good likelihood. It's, as you say, Buckingham's route via Northampton that stands out. Edward IV died on 9 April, 1483. According to Williamson, his son's party left Ludlow on 24 April, expecting to be in London for his coronation on 4 May. Williamson also has Richard reaching Northampton on 29 April, where he was joined by Buckingham. Which leads to the question, when did Buckingham learn of Edward IV's death and where was he when that information reached him? If Buckingham was in Brecon, he'd have had to depart there a day or two before Edward's party left Ludlow in order to arrive at Northampton at the same time. Then there's the implied idea, to me anyway, that the meeting between Richard and Buckingham was planned. Perhaps if not at Northampton, then not far away. But such a meeting requires not only a messenger going from Richard to Buckingham proposing the meet-up, but a second messenger from Buckingham to Richard agreeing to the meeting. Which also implies that, if he originated the exchange, Richard knew where to contact Buckingham. Of course, if the originator was Buckingham, the problem is simpler; he'd send a messenger off to York, via the north/south road to ensure catching Richard had he already departed. So I'm left with these questions: 1) Where was Buckingham when Edward IV died? 2) Was it Buckingham who proposed meeting at Northampton? Or was it sheer chance? And, in the unlikely event it was Richard, how did he know where to send the messenger to deliver the proposal to Buckingham? In any event, any proposal for a meeting would have taken nearly a week to be proposed and for the one making the proposal to receive confirmation. Or wouldn't it? My original view was that it wasn't likely people knew about the Pre-Contract prior to Stillington's meeting with the Council, but there's definitely the possibility that it was known by a few. Possibly even a Woodville or two and, also possibly, Buckingham. I believe he was related to Eleanor Butler via his mother, and his status as royal might have lead to him being told. FWIW, my personal view, and barring any further information, is that Richard didn't know about the Pre-Contract until Stillington's revelation, or possibly immediately before the Bishop made them. Had Richard been informed of the Pre-Contract at Northampton by Buckingham, he would have immediately understood the implications for himself. Which would have meant either the summoning of all sorts of people to London to verify, or disprove, what Richard had been told. Or, at the very least, a noticeable number of parties being dispatched to take sworn statements. Then there's Richard's letter of 10 June, after Hastings' plot had been foiled, to York requesting soldiers. If Richard had known all along that he was his brother's legal heir, why wait so long? Why wait until an attempt had actually been made on his life before summoning assistance? I admit that some of these activities might have taken place under the cover of the preparations for the up-coming coronation, but it seems more likely that, rather than confirming Stillington's charge before that Council meeting, any such meetings, sworn statements and the like, were what made it possible for the Three Estates to ask Richard to accept the crown  enough well-regarded members of that body had already publicly acknowledged Richard's right to it during the follow-up to Hastings' plot. (I hope that makes sense?) I think we both agree that MB was always plotting to get her son back into England. Edward IV and Richard placed conditions on Henry's return that, for whatever reason, she felt were unacceptable. Buckingham, whether as a representative of Edward V or himself, needed as much support as he could get, so he agreed to MB's conditions. Then, and again it's only my personal view, after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB was no longer the person making the decisions on Henry Tudor's return, he himself was. And Margaret went along. Doug Mary wrote: So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial! Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard? I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards h er just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-01 11:20:52
Hilary Jones
Doug, I agree about the routes. Before the MI the old "London Road" from the North and Midlands used to pass through Stony Stratford and is close to the A5 (Watling) which runs near Northampton and Milton Keynes. So Richard would have passed that way when he'd crossed from the AI from York. Same with Ludlow, in fact AW could have headed east towards what is now south of Birmingham and down the A5 at Nuneaton bringing him out on the old London Road at Stony Stratford.
But you're right Brecon is a puzzle.I would have thought you would have come out much 'lower down', nowadays it would be the M4, and not need to touch the Midlands at all? Do we know he came from Brecon? His route would make much more sense if he came from Mancetter Staffs when he would be following the same route as the others.
You make some very good points about communications, it would have been a very tedious route going from west to east, north to south. We're told that Edward's death took Richard by surprise but perhaps, as Nico suggests, some people had better knowledge of Edward's true state of health and Buckingham was in that loop? I'd not heard the diabetes theory before, Nico, nor did I know that its symptoms coincide with some of the things we know about Edward. The more you think about the young undefeated Edward, the more odd it is that he chose to hole himself up in London. Perhaps it's too easy to label someone with things like laziness? (Actually it's Ross who says he was one of the most hardworking monarchs when in came to legislation and paperwork - his writing is on a lot of documents).
If Buckingham knew about the Pre Contract and about the fragility of Edward's health he could have pondered on this for some time. In fact both the Woodville actions and his actions bear the signs of pre-planning, as Collins says. It's only when the Hastings letter alerts Richard and leads to Rivers' arrest that the cat is thrown amongst the pigeons. FWIW I don't think Buckingham was working with the Woodvilles, I think he saw on opportunity for himself. After all, Edward had deprived him of some of his lands.
And Richard? I'm with you and I don't reckon he had a clue about any of this. For one thing he'd been away with his mind on other things really since the death of Clarence and it could have been that he felt Buckingham, as a cousin, might have filled the Clarence void? What is even more intriguing is how long all this had been going on and what part it might well have played in the demise of Clarence. Just my musings. H


On Monday, 1 January 2018, 03:05:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, I had to go digging in my old motoring atlas, but I came with the following: 1) Going from Ludlow to London would either mean heading towards Gloucester and then take the road based on, I think, Watling Street to London or else head east/southeast and catch the main north/south road at Northampton. Possibly via Conventry? 2) Going from Brecon to London would mean crossing the Severn at Gloucester and then take the road based on Watling Street to London. 3) Going from York to London would mean taking the main north/south road that passed through Northampton. So, presuming I've gotten my geography correct, Richard passing through Northampton would have been a given. Edward's party passing through that town would have been, if not a given, certainly a good likelihood. It's, as you say, Buckingham's route via Northampton that stands out. Edward IV died on 9 April, 1483. According to Williamson, his son's party left Ludlow on 24 April, expecting to be in London for his coronation on 4 May. Williamson also has Richard reaching Northampton on 29 April, where he was joined by Buckingham. Which leads to the question, when did Buckingham learn of Edward IV's death and where was he when that information reached him? If Buckingham was in Brecon, he'd have had to depart there a day or two before Edward's party left Ludlow in order to arrive at Northampton at the same time. Then there's the implied idea, to me anyway, that the meeting between Richard and Buckingham was planned. Perhaps if not at Northampton, then not far away. But such a meeting requires not only a messenger going from Richard to Buckingham proposing the meet-up, but a second messenger from Buckingham to Richard agreeing to the meeting. Which also implies that, if he originated the exchange, Richard knew where to contact Buckingham. Of course, if the originator was Buckingham, the problem is simpler; he'd send a messenger off to York, via the north/south road to ensure catching Richard had he already departed. So I'm left with these questions: 1) Where was Buckingham when Edward IV died? 2) Was it Buckingham who proposed meeting at Northampton? Or was it sheer chance? And, in the unlikely event it was Richard, how did he know where to send the messenger to deliver the proposal to Buckingham? In any event, any proposal for a meeting would have taken nearly a week to be proposed and for the one making the proposal to receive confirmation. Or wouldn't it? My original view was that it wasn't likely people knew about the Pre-Contract prior to Stillington's meeting with the Council, but there's definitely the possibility that it was known by a few. Possibly even a Woodville or two and, also possibly, Buckingham. I believe he was related to Eleanor Butler via his mother, and his status as royal might have lead to him being told..

FWIW, my personal view, and barring any further information, is that Richard didn't know about the Pre-Contract until Stillington's revelation, or possibly immediately before the Bishop made them. Had Richard been informed of the Pre-Contract at Northampton by Buckingham, he would have immediately understood the implications for himself. Which would have meant either the summoning of all sorts of people to London to verify, or disprove, what Richard had been told. Or, at the very least, a noticeable number of parties being dispatched to take sworn statements. Then there's Richard's letter of 10 June, after Hastings' plot had been foiled, to York requesting soldiers. If Richard had known all along that he was his brother's legal heir, why wait so long? Why wait until an attempt had actually been made on his life before summoning assistance? I admit that some of these activities might have taken place under the cover of the preparations for the up-coming coronation, but it seems more likely that, rather than confirming Stillington's charge before that Council meeting, any such meetings, sworn statements and the like, were what made it possible for the Three Estates to ask Richard to accept the crown  enough well-regarded members of that body had already publicly acknowledged Richard's right to it during the follow-up to Hastings' plot. (I hope that makes sense?) I think we both agree that MB was always plotting to get her son back into England. Edward IV and Richard placed conditions on Henry's return that, for whatever reason, she felt were unacceptable. Buckingham, whether as a representative of Edward V or himself, needed as much support as he could get, so he agreed to MB's conditions. Then, and again it's only my personal view, after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB was no longer the person making the decisions on Henry Tudor's return, he himself was. And Margaret went along. Doug Mary wrote: So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial! Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard? I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards h er just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-01 11:35:41
Hilary Jones
Forgot to add. I think Richard was the forgotten heir, maybe because some thought that with the scoliosis he might not live that long (they didn't have our medical knowledge).That would make Clarence as the true heir a real target, either as someone to court, or as someone to eliminate depending who you were. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 11:20:58 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, I agree about the routes. Before the MI the old "London Road" from the North and Midlands used to pass through Stony Stratford and is close to the A5 (Watling) which runs near Northampton and Milton Keynes. So Richard would have passed that way when he'd crossed from the AI from York. Same with Ludlow, in fact AW could have headed east towards what is now south of Birmingham and down the A5 at Nuneaton bringing him out on the old London Road at Stony Stratford.
But you're right Brecon is a puzzle.I would have thought you would have come out much 'lower down', nowadays it would be the M4, and not need to touch the Midlands at all? Do we know he came from Brecon? His route would make much more sense if he came from Mancetter Staffs when he would be following the same route as the others.
You make some very good points about communications, it would have been a very tedious route going from west to east, north to south. We're told that Edward's death took Richard by surprise but perhaps, as Nico suggests, some people had better knowledge of Edward's true state of health and Buckingham was in that loop? I'd not heard the diabetes theory before, Nico, nor did I know that its symptoms coincide with some of the things we know about Edward. The more you think about the young undefeated Edward, the more odd it is that he chose to hole himself up in London. Perhaps it's too easy to label someone with things like laziness? (Actually it's Ross who says he was one of the most hardworking monarchs when in came to legislation and paperwork - his writing is on a lot of documents).
If Buckingham knew about the Pre Contract and about the fragility of Edward's health he could have pondered on this for some time. In fact both the Woodville actions and his actions bear the signs of pre-planning, as Collins says. It's only when the Hastings letter alerts Richard and leads to Rivers' arrest that the cat is thrown amongst the pigeons. FWIW I don't think Buckingham was working with the Woodvilles, I think he saw on opportunity for himself. After all, Edward had deprived him of some of his lands.
And Richard? I'm with you and I don't reckon he had a clue about any of this. For one thing he'd been away with his mind on other things really since the death of Clarence and it could have been that he felt Buckingham, as a cousin, might have filled the Clarence void? What is even more intriguing is how long all this had been going on and what part it might well have played in the demise of Clarence. Just my musings. H


On Monday, 1 January 2018, 03:05:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Mary, I had to go digging in my old motoring atlas, but I came with the following: 1) Going from Ludlow to London would either mean heading towards Gloucester and then take the road based on, I think, Watling Street to London or else head east/southeast and catch the main north/south road at Northampton. Possibly via Conventry? 2) Going from Brecon to London would mean crossing the Severn at Gloucester and then take the road based on Watling Street to London. 3) Going from York to London would mean taking the main north/south road that passed through Northampton. So, presuming I've gotten my geography correct, Richard passing through Northampton would have been a given. Edward's party passing through that town would have been, if not a given, certainly a good likelihood. It's, as you say, Buckingham's route via Northampton that stands out. Edward IV died on 9 April, 1483. According to Williamson, his son's party left Ludlow on 24 April, expecting to be in London for his coronation on 4 May. Williamson also has Richard reaching Northampton on 29 April, where he was joined by Buckingham. Which leads to the question, when did Buckingham learn of Edward IV's death and where was he when that information reached him? If Buckingham was in Brecon, he'd have had to depart there a day or two before Edward's party left Ludlow in order to arrive at Northampton at the same time. Then there's the implied idea, to me anyway, that the meeting between Richard and Buckingham was planned. Perhaps if not at Northampton, then not far away. But such a meeting requires not only a messenger going from Richard to Buckingham proposing the meet-up, but a second messenger from Buckingham to Richard agreeing to the meeting. Which also implies that, if he originated the exchange, Richard knew where to contact Buckingham. Of course, if the originator was Buckingham, the problem is simpler; he'd send a messenger off to York, via the north/south road to ensure catching Richard had he already departed. So I'm left with these questions: 1) Where was Buckingham when Edward IV died? 2) Was it Buckingham who proposed meeting at Northampton? Or was it sheer chance? And, in the unlikely event it was Richard, how did he know where to send the messenger to deliver the proposal to Buckingham? In any event, any proposal for a meeting would have taken nearly a week to be proposed and for the one making the proposal to receive confirmation. Or wouldn't it? My original view was that it wasn't likely people knew about the Pre-Contract prior to Stillington's meeting with the Council, but there's definitely the possibility that it was known by a few. Possibly even a Woodville or two and, also possibly, Buckingham. I believe he was related to Eleanor Butler via his mother, and his status as royal might have lead to him being told..

FWIW, my personal view, and barring any further information, is that Richard didn't know about the Pre-Contract until Stillington's revelation, or possibly immediately before the Bishop made them. Had Richard been informed of the Pre-Contract at Northampton by Buckingham, he would have immediately understood the implications for himself. Which would have meant either the summoning of all sorts of people to London to verify, or disprove, what Richard had been told. Or, at the very least, a noticeable number of parties being dispatched to take sworn statements. Then there's Richard's letter of 10 June, after Hastings' plot had been foiled, to York requesting soldiers. If Richard had known all along that he was his brother's legal heir, why wait so long? Why wait until an attempt had actually been made on his life before summoning assistance? I admit that some of these activities might have taken place under the cover of the preparations for the up-coming coronation, but it seems more likely that, rather than confirming Stillington's charge before that Council meeting, any such meetings, sworn statements and the like, were what made it possible for the Three Estates to ask Richard to accept the crown  enough well-regarded members of that body had already publicly acknowledged Richard's right to it during the follow-up to Hastings' plot. (I hope that makes sense?) I think we both agree that MB was always plotting to get her son back into England. Edward IV and Richard placed conditions on Henry's return that, for whatever reason, she felt were unacceptable. Buckingham, whether as a representative of Edward V or himself, needed as much support as he could get, so he agreed to MB's conditions. Then, and again it's only my personal view, after the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, MB was no longer the person making the decisions on Henry Tudor's return, he himself was. And Margaret went along. Doug Mary wrote: So many things to consider. It is much more complicated than Richard was evil, plotting to take the throne from an early age, he murdered the Princes and executed Hastings for no reason and didn't even give him a trial! Another point to put in to the mix, In his book about the death of Edward IV, Collins speculates that Buckingham was involved with Anthony Woodville's plotting. One of the reasons that he gives is that Brecon was quite near to Ludlow. Also Buckingham suddenly turns up at Northampton to meet Richard, why did he do that? I suppose that it could be a possibility that he had been persuaded by his wife to support the Woodvilles in their plans to have E5 crowned before Richard arrived in London. The question then is did he know about the pre-contract at that early stage or did he only learn about it after Stillington told Richard? I have always believed that MB was always plotting to make HT King but I am leaning towards h er just wanting to get Henry back into the country and siding with the person or persons who were most likely to make that happen. Keep speculating.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-01 12:46:57
Karen O
    I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know.
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him. 
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,...   Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead.   Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V.  He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage.  After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better.  The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard?  Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future.  His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V.   Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.  
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else.   However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety.   There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard.   Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king...   Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB.  The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit.  The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return.  Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI.  Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position.  The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B.   Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed.  There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp.  Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her.  ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood).  If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB.  Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law.  I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham.  Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her.   Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-01 12:48:54
Hilary Jones
I have a list. I will wrote to you later. Cooking at the moment :)) H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, January 1, 2018, 12:47 pm, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know..
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-01 14:11:28
ricard1an
Very interesting points Doug which are all plausible. With regard to your point that Buckingham may have told Richard about the pre-contract in Northampton, what if instead he told him that the Woodvilles were planning to attack and kill him on the way to London because they wanted to have control over E5? Buckingham could have discovered this from his wife possibly or because he was pretending to side with AW. There was a very good article in the Ricardian Bulletin some years ago outlining a possible plot that AW had planned to ambush Richard on the way to London. E5 had moved on from Northampton to Stony Stratford and that was AW's way of removing him from Richard's protection. Stony Stratford is near to the Woodville's property at Grafton. The article had maps and showed where the ambush could have taken place. It is probably online somewhere as the Bulletins are being put online. Just another thought to wrestle with!
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-01 15:58:30
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: There really is so much to consider. Collins made some convincing arguments about Anthony Woodville's behaviour, especially that petition for control of the future Edward V. It may not have been a murder plot, but the evidence suggests that Edward had been ill for some time and his condition was worsening, and AW was desperate to maintain control. Nevertheless, there is something about the AW's behaviour that is open to interpretation as 'imagining the death of the King.' There has been some speculation about Edward having diabetes, which could well have been the case as he was overweight, and the vomiting after meals (gastroparesis) is a common symptom of diabetes. If Edward had complications of diabetes, he would have been vulnerable to infections, which at the time would have been life threatening, so AW had to be prepared. Doug here: I do remember reading that Edward's health/weight had gotten so that he could no longer sit a horse. Considering the times, that incapacity would be a good sign that something was wrong with Edward's health. I find it interesting that you use the word desperate to describe Anthony Woodville's actions, because the impression I get is that, while Edward's overall health mightn't give cause for any particular worries about this disease or that, if one's position was so completely dependent on that one particular person, as Woodville's was, then it would make sense to prepare for the worst  in this case, the death of Edward IV. Of course, one thing that any sign of desperation on Anthony Woodville's could signify is that it was well-known that, should Edward IV die before his son had reached his majority, then Richard was to become Protector. Perhaps Woodville wasn't so much making preparations in case of the death of Edward IV as he was making preparations when/if Richard should become Protector? As Protector, Richard would be charged with running the kingdom, but did the Protectorship automatically carry with it the control of Edward V's person? Nico continued: I can't remember the bit about Buckingham (I read Collins a few years ago, but will try to check it again), but the point you make about him meeting Richard in Northampton is interesting, because Richard and Buckingham don't appear to have had much previous contact. However, as Hilary mentions, something doesn't seem quite right about a Buckingham-Woodville alliance, given the rivalry between their families and the accounts that Buckingham resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville and considered the Woodvilles inferior. However, the latter point may have been exaggerated and Doug may be right that Buckingham may have been tempted by a 'Kingmaker' role. If there was a Woodville-Buckingham plot, why did Buckingham abandon Edward? Maybe he had some respect for AW and was willing to work with him, but not the Marquis of Dorset, who would have taken over as Edward V chief guardian. However, after Edward died it is more likely that Buckingham thought it in his best interests to betray AW to Richard, possibly revealing what he knew about the precontract and told him that Stillington had the proof. If there was some collusion between AW and Buckingham, and Richard discovered that that Buckingham was in deeper than he had disclosed, that could be another reason for the rift. (Hilary and Doug's suggestions about him setting up Hastings and Buckingham's ambitions exceeding his talents with him being angry at being pushed aside by the House of York yet again are equally plausible.) It could have been more than one of these factors that turned Buckingham into 'the most untrue' creature, and it really is so difficult to see how he 'fits in' to the overall picture, and for me anyway, the mystery of Buckingham's motivations extends to MB, given the historical links between the two of them. While I don't rule it out, a Woodville-Buckingham alliance complicates a murky picture further, and it could have been simply the precontract that Buckingham revealed. Doug here: My line of reasoning for Buckingham backing a restoration of Edward V is based on the following: From late April until Richard's coronation in late July, Buckingham's actions all point to his supporting Richard and in return Richard had made decisions in his favor and loaded him with honors. However, in September we have Buckingham sending a letter to Henry Tudor requesting his aid in returning Edward V to the throne. What had happened? The only thing I can currently come up with is that Buckingham had not only had Morton placed in his custody but, after the coronation was also in Morton's company in Brecon and, quite likely, open to manipulation by Morton. Such manipulation would, or so it seems to me, have been based on Buckingham's ego at not being included in Richard's inner circle. He was, again!, being exclude from his rightful place at the center of power. However, if Buckingham was the prime mover, besides of course the Woodvilles, behind a restoration of Edward V, who was there to stand in his path to power? The only male Woodville remaining was Dorset. Henry Tudor was a nobody whose support would be gained by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Obviously, the only person capable of taking the role of advising (even managing?) Edward V would have been Buckingham himself. Thus an alliance of Buckingham and the Woodvilles would satisfy the interests of both parties  Buckingham would take his rightful place at the center of Court and Council and the son, nephew and step-brother of the Woodvilles would be returned to his throne. As for knowledge of the Pre-Contract; well, first a claim that it was a fabrication of Richard's and, if that didn't suffice, there were always the laws against lese majeste... While Buckingham might have known of the Pre-Contract, it seems more likely to me that any information Buckingham might have passed on to Richard at Northampton was about a Woodville plot to either capture or kill Richard. Which also explains why the Rivers, Scales and Vaughan were executed after Hastings' plot was foiled  they'd already been involved in one plot against Richard and, depending on how closely they'd been guarded, may have been involved, or at least had information, about Hastings' plot as well. Even if their being in custody prevented them from taking an active part in the plot, failure to inform Richard of the plot would have been treason.
Nico concluded: Some people must have known about the pre-contract, but in Edward's reign it would have been confined to certain circles, but once the Woodvilles knew of it, they would be very aftraid of the news spreading or being taken seriously. For this reason, Buckingham had much to fear since he was so closely related to Eleanor that it is more probable than not that he knew. If Edward V was restored to the throne, the Woodvilles would most likely have found an excuse to hasten his demise, as well as anyone else who was likely to know, including MB. Ankaret Twyhno and the possible 'victims' suggested by J-AH come to mind. I'm not sure what difference being crowned would make. Since previous anointed Kings, such as Edward II and Henry VI, had been deposed, if Edward V's illegitimacy were revealed at any time, he was vulnerable. Wishing every one a Happy New Year, Doug here: To a certain extent I still find the idea that nobody knew of the Pre-Contract until Stillington informed the Council, but I think I'll have to amend that to no general knowledge of the Pre-Contract before that Council meeting. We do know that two people, Edward and Eleanor, knew of the marriage, and there's the supposition that there was a third person involved, a priest, but not Stillington, who performed the ceremony. I say supposition because, if I understand the law correctly, a simple statement, something on the order of I take thee as my wife/husband, even without a priest present, would have made a legal marriage. As far as we know, Edward kept his mouth shut. So who, if anyone, would Eleanor have told? Not only would the person or persons have to have been someone Eleanor trusted completely, they would also have to be someone who, if later asked about the marriage, were of sufficient importance to have their word taken as the truth. I'm not competent to say who that might, or might not, have been, only that I suspect the number was very limited; say, two or three at the most. Further than that, I have no idea. I will say that, while Buckingham may, somehow, have learned about the Pre-Contract, I would say he wasn't one of the original two or three Eleanor told. It's possible that, after the death of Edward IV, word of the Pre-Contract began circulating as those few who knew of it began to speak out. I doubt Rivers had heard anything about the Pre-Contract, or else his trip from Ludlow to London wouldn't have been so leisurely, surely? He'd have taken Edward and headed for London as fast as possible. Unless Buckingham managed to get all the non-Woodville Yorkists on his side, unlikely considering his betrayal of Richard, I can't see him as any sort of threat to a restored Edward V. So, while the Woodvilles might have considered him dangerous, I don't think it would have been likely. One never knows, of course... Edward being an anointed wouldn't, in and of itself, have protected him if knowledge of the Pre-Contract became known. What would have protected him was the timing of his coronation and anointing  before Richard had taken up his position as Protector. During that period, even if for only a day or two, the Woodvilles and their adherents would be in a position to change the composition of the Council, appoint a Constable, an Admiral, summon a Parliament and, most importantly, threaten anyone who mentioned the Pre-Contract with the same punishments that mentioning it while Edward IV was alive. It was that stacking of the deck, so to speak, that mattered. And that could only happen before Richard reached London. Doug Who also hopes everyone has a Happy New Year!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-01 16:31:06
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)). Doug here: Hope the result were satisfactory? Hilary continued: You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know Doug here: What if the rumors about Buckingham not particularly liking his having been married to Catherine Woodville? Wouldn't that give him a reason? I mentioned in another post the possibility that at Northampton Buckingham informed Richard of a plot by the Woodvilles to capture, or even kill, Richard. Is it possible that Buckingham, having learned of the Woodville plot, hurried to meet Richard at Northampton, not only to forestall the plot, but also to, well, get in good with Richard? If the plot did encompass Richard's death, couldn't Buckingham have expected Richard's gratitude, at the least? A two-fer, so to speak; dishing the Woodvilles and making nice with the new Protector-to-be. What's not to like? Currently I rather lean towards Buckingham knowing of some plot against Richard, rather than possessing any knowledge of the Pre-Contract. However, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong! Hilary continued: There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so. Doug here: In response to your remark about Hastings and the Greys, might I suggest Warwick and Margaret of Anjou? IOW, strictly, very strictly, a political marriage of convenience? Hastings, as later did Buckingham, discovered Richard wasn't going to include him in the governing inner circle and allied himself with those who needed him, desperately? Hilary concluded: Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him. Happy New Year all. Doug here: I may very well be going out on a limb here, but aren't there errors in Croyland that, if Russell was the Continuator, shouldn't be there? Especially omissions and facts that Russell should have both included and known to be false? My personal view is that whoever the Continuator was, it wasn't anyone in an appointed position such as Chancellor, but rather someone well-placed in the household of some such appointee. Do we know any members of Russell's household? And, more importantly, how they faired under Henry? Doug And a Happy New Year to you, too!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-01 17:11:07
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury"

Carol responds:

The marriage of the two children took place January 15 1478. but Richard saw Buckingham again soon after that during the trial (such as it was) of George of Clarence, when Buckingham temporarily took Richard's place as constable. George was executed February 18, 1478, and Richard left for the north soon afterwards. So that would be more than five years during which they didn't see each other (and Buckingham's role in George's trial would give Richard no reason to like him). Whether Buckingham remained at court (in close contact with the Woodvilles through his wife) or went home to Brecon at that point, I don't know.

Hilary wrote:

"Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler."

Carol responds:

If I recall correctly, Russell has been pretty much ruled out as the chronicler. For one thing, he worked closely with Richard and must have played an active role in all the policies and decisions that Croyland decried. His draft for a speech at Edward V's coronation (never delivered, of course) asks Richard to continue his role as Protector, with increased powers, after the coronation until EV comes of age, and he must have had a say in the decision to try Anthony Woodville, Richard Gray, et al., for treason (with the guilty verdict a foregone conclusion). He would certainly have known that the investiture of Edward of Middleham as Prince of Wales was not a second coronation. The story that Richard deprived Russell of the Great Seal at the last minute is just a fiction. He needed it and Russell couldn't deliver it in person. Richard, had he lived, would have returned it to his chancellor's custody.

Whoever wrote the continuation of the Croyland chronicle knew a great deal less than Russell did and had more reason to be hostile--probably because, unlike Russell, he was not at the center of affairs after the death of Edward IV.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-01 17:21:34
ricard1an
Doug, I just googled Ricardian Bulletin the plot to kill Richard Duke of Gloucester at Stony Stratford and it came up with the article in the Bulletin in March 2004. It is on page 27.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-02 10:58:35
Hilary Jones
Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury None
Devon and Cornwall None (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'. Hope this helps. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know..
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-02 11:11:28
Hilary Jones
Re your first question Doug I reckon there should be another degree of difficulty in Masterchef when two squabbling five year olds are inserted into the kitchen. Luckily they have now be 'posted' home!
Going back to Hastings you know there is another motive for the Woodvilles wanting to get rid of him other than his support of Richard and potential influence on Edward V.
As I've said many times, the Greys (of Groby) and the Hastings family had been in gang warfare for the dominance of Leicestershire for a long time (and were still marauding in 1515). The squabbling High Sheriffs in neighbouring Warwickshire had just been contained by the Beauchamps and then Richard Neville. When Clarence took over Edward continually meddled to undermine his control and did this by virtually inviting Hastings and the Greys to step in. After the death of Clarence, Hastings's influence had extended to Coventry - then one of the top ten cities which made him virtually Lord of the Midlands south of the Trent.
That was some prize (and probably another reason why after the death of Hastings Richard lost Bosworth)! With Hastings out of the way and attainted that left the way wide open for the Greys. H

On Monday, 1 January 2018, 16:31:14 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)). Doug here: Hope the result were satisfactory? Hilary continued: You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know Doug here: What if the rumors about Buckingham not particularly liking his having been married to Catherine Woodville? Wouldn't that give him a reason? I mentioned in another post the possibility that at Northampton Buckingham informed Richard of a plot by the Woodvilles to capture, or even kill, Richard. Is it possible that Buckingham, having learned of the Woodville plot, hurried to meet Richard at Northampton, not only to forestall the plot, but also to, well, get in good with Richard? If the plot did encompass Richard's death, couldn't Buckingham have expected Richard's gratitude, at the least? A two-fer, so to speak; dishing the Woodvilles and making nice with the new Protector-to-be. What's not to like? Currently I rather lean towards Buckingham knowing of some plot against Richard, rather than possessing any knowledge of the Pre-Contract. However, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong! Hilary continued: There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so. Doug here: In response to your remark about Hastings and the Greys, might I suggest Warwick and Margaret of Anjou? IOW, strictly, very strictly, a political marriage of convenience? Hastings, as later did Buckingham, discovered Richard wasn't going to include him in the governing inner circle and allied himself with those who needed him, desperately? Hilary concluded: Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him. Happy New Year all. Doug here: I may very well be going out on a limb here, but aren't there errors in Croyland that, if Russell was the Continuator, shouldn't be there? Especially omissions and facts that Russell should have both included and known to be false? My personal view is that whoever the Continuator was, it wasn't anyone in an appointed position such as Chancellor, but rather someone well-placed in the household of some such appointee. Do we know any members of Russell's household? And, more importantly, how they faired under Henry? Doug And a Happy New Year to you, too!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-02 11:37:15
ricard1an
Hilary, that fits in with my theory that after Edward died there were certain people who couldn't be allowed to live. My theory was always based on the assumption that MB was plotting to put her darling son on the throne, but now I am not so sure it could possibly have been the Woodvilles. Part of my theory was that Hastings had to go because he would never put up with HT as King, he would have wanted E5 as King so that he could use his influence over him. However, your post throws up another reason for his demise. Curiouser and curiouser.
Mary

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

2018-01-02 12:30:16
Hilary Jones
Yes Mary, if you work it out, in terms of lands Hastings, having supplanted Warwick and Clarence in the Midlands, was almost as powerful as Richard. And he was nudged right up against the Staffords and the Stanleys. H
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 11:37:20 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, that fits in with my theory that after Edward died there were certain people who couldn't be allowed to live. My theory was always based on the assumption that MB was plotting to put her darling son on the throne, but now I am not so sure it could possibly have been the Woodvilles. Part of my theory was that Hastings had to go because he would never put up with HT as King, he would have wanted E5 as King so that he could use his influence over him. However, your post throws up another reason for his demise. Curiouser and curiouser.


Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-02 14:39:44
Nicholas Brown

Doug: I find it interesting that you use the word desperate to describe Anthony Woodville's actions, because the impression I get is that, while Edward's overall health mightn't give cause for any particular worries about this disease or that, if one's position was so completely dependent on that one particular person, as Woodville's was, then it would make sense to prepare for the worst ... As Protector, Richard would be charged with running the kingdom, but did the Protectorship automatically carry with it the control of Edward V's person?
I am inclined to agree with you here, and I don't think it would make sense for AW or any of the Woodvilles to murder EIV or hasten his demise in any way. Becoming more insular and not being able to sit on a horse suggests that whatever was wrong with EIV was serious, and would have been known by those close to him. The horse reference is also suggestive of diabetes because of the tendency towards ulceration in sensitive areas such as the groin and upper thighs. Actually, I would also speculate that there was a family history of diabetes because other Plantagenets who were tall and overweight in middle age had similar undefined health problems. John of Gaunt was obese and had ulceration in the groin area (often suggested as an STI, but diabetes is a better fit), the Black Prince may have had something similar and Henry VIII was also obese and had leg ulcers. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence does indicate that his health had been in general decline for some time, which has a lot of relevance to AW's intentions, and stopping Richard becoming Protector would have been essential to maintaining his position. As far as I know, as Protector, Richard would have had control of Edward V's person, and AW had every reason to fear being completely left out in the cold. If not exactly desperate, AW had every reason to be extremely concerned.

Doug:While Buckingham might have known of the Pre-Contract, it seems more likely to me that any information Buckingham might have passed on to Richard at Northampton was about a Woodville plot to either capture or kill Richard. Which also explains why the Rivers, Scales and Vaughan were executed after Hastings' plot was foiled  they'd already been involved in one plot against Richard and, depending on how closely they'd been guarded, may have been involved, or at least had information, about Hastings' plot as well. Even if their being in custody prevented them from taking an active part in the plot, failure to inform Richard of the plot would have been treason.
Even if he wasn't actively involved in a Woodville plot, if Buckingham was in contract with AW, he may have deduced something from his behaviour, things he said or something someone else such as Catherine Woodville told him that made him certain that he would take drastic action to prevent Richard's protectorship. Given the events leading up to Stony Stratford, warning Richard would have been Buckingham's priority at the point. I have always been sceptical that Hastings would get involved with a conspiracy with the Woodvilles, given the history between them, but that would depend on how strongly Hastings felt about EV.

Doug:The only thing I can currently come up with is that Buckingham had not only had Morton placed in his custody but, after the coronation was also in Morton's company in Brecon and, quite likely, open to manipulation by Morton. Such manipulation would, or so it seems to me, have been based on Buckingham's ego at not being included in Richard's inner circle. ... The only male Woodville remaining was Dorset. Henry Tudor was a nobody whose support would be gained by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Obviously, the only person capable of taking the role of advising (even managing?) Edward V would have been Buckingham himself. Thus an alliance of Buckingham and the Woodvilles would satisfy the interests of both parties
Buckingham may have seen himself in a 'Kingmaker' role after having 'rescued' Richard from the Woodville plot (possibly also giving information that led to the disclosure of the precontract) and felt Richard owed him a huge debt of gratitude which was not repaid when Buckingham was left out of his 'inner circle.' Anyone could feel slighted under the circumstances, but an impulsive and egotistical person could easily be turned especially if manipulated by someone like Morton. However, I'm not convinced Buckingham was ever really interesting in restoring Edward V. If Richard's rewards were unsatisfactory, it was equally predictable that Woodvilles would close ranks too. The problem with the Woodvilles in 1483, was that while Dorset may have taken his place, along with EW as EV's most senior advisor, Lionel, Edward and Richard Woodville were all still alive (until 1484, 1488 and 1491 respectively.) Richard of Shrewsbury would play major role later on. This is the Woodville clique that I envision as ultimately sidelining both Buckingham and HT. Lionel, as a Bishop could expect a particularly central role, and Edward, Richard and RofS would probably marry and have their own heirs, while the Woodville sisters and their husbands would be rewarded but kept at bay because they may have their own agendas. I also suspect that MB may have felt the same way, and the marriage of HT and EofY was something that would only go ahead if circumstances worked out in a way that it was in her and HT's best interests.
Doug: As far as we know, Edward kept his mouth shut. So who, if anyone, would Eleanor have told? I would say he wasn't one of the original two or three Eleanor told. I doubt Rivers had heard anything about the Pre-Contract, or else his trip from Ludlow to London wouldn't have been so leisurely, surely? He'd have taken Edward and headed for London as fast as possible. Edward being an anointed wouldn't, in and of itself, have protected him if knowledge of the Pre-Contract became known. What would have protected him was the timing of his coronation and anointing  before Richard had taken up his position as Protector. During that period, even if for only a day or two, the Woodvilles and their adherents would be in a position to change the composition of the Council, appoint a Constable, an Admiral, summon a Parliament and, most importantly, threaten anyone who mentioned the Pre-Contract..
I think Buckingham would have been told the 'family secret' by his mother. If Eleanor told anyone, it would probably be her immediate family and possibly the Catesby family who were consulted for legal advice. While they may have felt powerless to protest, when the precontract was revealed, the Talbot family never objected to a story that would have been a slur on Eleanor's memory, which implied that they knew. Buckingham may not have known whether what he had been told was credible, but he may have passed what he knew onto Richard, who then investigated the matter - while supporting EV, assuming it wasn't true until provable. Then, Stillington came forward with the proof...As for AW, if he was worried about the precontract, it would have made sense to move even faster to make sure EV was crowned, then suppressed the information as you say. However, Clarence's suspicions about EW's paranoia in 1470s are also interesting, and if it was the precontract that caused her insecurity, then the other Woodvilles probably did know. Perhaps AW was overconfident and too focused on pushing out Richard to worry about the precontract.
Nico

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

2018-01-02 15:33:07
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug, I agree about the routes. Before the MI the old "London Road" from the North and Midlands used to pass through Stony Stratford and is close to the A5 (Watling) which runs near Northampton and Milton Keynes. So Richard would have passed that way when he'd crossed from the AI from York. Same with Ludlow, in fact AW could have headed east towards what is now south of Birmingham and down the A5 at Nuneaton bringing him out on the old London Road at Stony Stratford. But you're right Brecon is a puzzle.I would have thought you would have come out much 'lower down', nowadays it would be the M4, and not need to touch the Midlands at all? Do we know he came from Brecon? His route would make much more sense if he came from Mancetter Staffs when he would be following the same route as the others. Doug here: It rather appears as if the determining factor would be who Buckingham meant to meet up with, and when, wouldn't it? Presuming, of course, that he meant to meet up with anyone! Because there's also the possibility, a very good one, that my idea that Buckingham ever intended to meet up with Richard is just that  an idea with no basis in fact. If I recall it correctly, the Woodville party had already passed through Stony Stratford and were making preparations for their nightly bivouac when Richard arrived at the town. But I don't recall any mention of when Richard and Buckingham met. Did the two parties encounter each other as they each approached the town from different directions? Could it simply have been a matter of Buckingham merely following along behind the Woodville party? Thus his meeting with Richard would have been fortuitous. And if Buckingham's meeting with Richard was sheer chance, wouldn't that also likely mean that it was that letter from Hastings that first tipped Richard off about the Woodville plans? I have to admit that I'm puzzled by all this. If Richard was first informed of the Woodville plans for a hurried coronation of Edward by Hastings' letter, and if the meeting between Richard and Buckingham was by chance, then one possibility is that Buckingham was in the dark about the Woodville intentions until Richard told him. Which, while it doesn't rule out Buckingham knowing about the Pre-Contract, does seem to indicate to me that he didn't. If Buckingham knew about the Pre-Contract, whether he was in Brecon or Mancetter, wouldn't his first action after hearing of Edward IV's death have been to immediately head for London? But from what we know, he didn't. If the good Duke was in Brecon, the fastest way to London would have meant his crossing the Severn at Gloucester and heading east. If he was at Mancetter, why did he wait so long to depart that he was, apparently, following the Woodville party? Tis a puzzlement! Hilary continued: You make some very good points about communications, it would have been a very tedious route going from west to east, north to south. We're told that Edward's death took Richard by surprise but perhaps, as Nico suggests, some people had better knowledge of Edward's true state of health and Buckingham was in that loop? I'd not heard the diabetes theory before, Nico, nor did I know that its symptoms coincide with some of the things we know about Edward. The more you think about the young undefeated Edward, the more odd it is that he chose to hole himself up in London. Perhaps it's too easy to label someone with things like laziness? (Actually it's Ross who says he was one of the most hardworking monarchs when in came to legislation and paperwork - his writing is on a lot of documents). Doug here: If Edward was suffering from side-effects of diabetes, that would, as you say, help explain his actions. Circulatory problems are one symptom, so travel, other than by boat/barge on the Thames, would likely be avoided. It might also mean that, when Edward did travel, it would be for short distances and, once at his destination, Edward would likely stay for some time. I recall someone, somewhere saying that one of the reasons Richard distrusted Hastings was that Hastings was known for procuring women for Edward. Not just that Edward and Hastings went whoring together, but that Hastings brought women to Edward for his sexual pleasure. Perhaps another sign of Edward's increasing inability to move about on his own? Or not. OTOH, paperwork, meeting with officials and such activities wouldn't necessarily require Edward to move about that much; after all, subjects come to the King, not the other way round! Hilary continued: If Buckingham knew about the Pre Contract and about the fragility of Edward's health he could have pondered on this for some time. In fact both the Woodville actions and his actions bear the signs of pre-planning, as Collins says. It's only when the Hastings letter alerts Richard and leads to Rivers' arrest that the cat is thrown amongst the pigeons. FWIW I don't think Buckingham was working with the Woodvilles, I think he saw on opportunity for himself. After all, Edward had deprived him of some of his lands. Doug here: FWIW, I don't think either Buckingham or the Woodvilles knew about the Pre-Contract before Edward died. If any of the Woodvilles had known, why did Rivers shilli-shally around? Had he known, wouldn't his first, over-riding impulse have been to get Edward to London, get Edward crowned, have the newly-crowned king do a reshuffle of the Council members (under his uncles' supervision of course) and, should word of the Pre-Contract then get out, denounce it as just a plot against the king. If Buckingham had known about the Pre-Contract, why wouldn't he have headed straight for London and travelled as fast as possible? If only to prevent the coronation of someone he knew to be a bastard? Literally. Even if he himself could only produce rumors or recount whispered conversations, that would be enough to halt any attempts to rush through Edward's coronation. Wouldn't responsible people make at least some sort of mental plan for what they'd do when Edward died, but limit making overt plans for that eventuality? Openly making plans for when the king died would have been risky, wouldn't it? An enemy might even call it imagining the King's death... Hilary concluded: And Richard? I'm with you and I don't reckon he had a clue about any of this. For one thing he'd been away with his mind on other things really since the death of Clarence and it could have been that he felt Buckingham, as a cousin, might have filled the Clarence void? What is even more intriguing is how long all this had been going on and what part it might well have played in the demise of Clarence. Just my musings. Doug here: The idea that Richard may have considered Buckingham in the role of some sort of advisor makes sense. Members of the royal family were expected to fill various roles in government; some of which were almost entirely ornamental, others with actual responsibilities. From his later actions, it would appear that Buckingham thought so anyway and was apparently, to put it mildly, miffed when he was excluded from the latter. Perhaps Richard viewed Buckingham as being too much like George? Buckingham's position as a royal Duke would mean that Richard would have to give him various honors befitting that rank, but not necessarily place him in any position of great responsibility. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-02 16:41:08
Karen O
  Thank you so much. Is this from Horrox?  How do these numbers compare to other kings?
On Jan 2, 2018 5:58 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:
 

Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury  None
Devon and Cornwall None  (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'.  Hope this helps. H  
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know...
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase.. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him. 
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

    Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,...   Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead.   Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V.  He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage.  After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better.  The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard?  Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future.  His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V.   Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.  
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else.   However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety.   There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard.   Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king...   Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB.  The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit.  The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return.  Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI.  Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position.  The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B.   Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed.  There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp.  Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her.  ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood).  If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB.  Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law.  I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham.  Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her.   Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-02 17:08:49
Karen
Doug : where did Richard expressly promise to take care of the boys? I thought only the girls were mentioned.
On Dec 28, 2017 9:37 AM, "nico11238@... []" <> wrote:
 

Doug wrote:

Doug wrote: Who Margaret actually supported seems to me to boil down to when the rumors were spread and, even more importantly, by whom...  I rule out Richard because he'd promised their mother he'd take care of the boys and Elizabeth Woodville's later actions support the view that Richard did. That would leave Morton or Buckingham as likely originators of the rumor. And for either of them, once again, timing would have been all. I firmly believe the original intention of those involved was to restore Edward to the throne, possibly with Buckingham assuming a Kingmaker role. In that case, rumors about the boys' deaths would be disastrous! Supposing Buckingham decided to use the rebellion as a means for him to get throne, then the rumors make sense. 

What did Buckingham have to offer Margaret that was better than Henry becoming the brother-in-law of the king? 

Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours, but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V.  He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage.  After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better.  The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard?  Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future.  His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V.
As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else.   However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety.   There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history.  This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard.
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB.  The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit.  The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return.  Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI.  Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position.  The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B.
A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed.  There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp.  Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her.  ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood).  If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB.  Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law.  I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham.  Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her.
Nico 



Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-02 22:13:55
Durose David
Karen and Hilary,
If you are looking at the numbers of rebels executed, it is necessary to bear in mind the numbers who escaped after the failure of the rebellion. The fact that a rebel was not executed does not imply leniency when that rebel was not available. Many of the leaders escaped, especially from the west country.
Examples - Dorset, Courtenay, Sir Robert Willoughby and his brother, Edgcombe...
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 16:41, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote:

Thank you so much. Is this from Horrox? How do these numbers compare to other kings?
On Jan 2, 2018 5:58 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury None
Devon and Cornwall None (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'. Hope this helps. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know...
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch.. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase.. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-02 22:16:57
Hilary Jones
Sorry David but very few went into exile. I can give you the stats on that as well. Will do tomorrow. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018, 10:14 pm, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Karen and Hilary,


If you are looking at the numbers of rebels executed, it is necessary to bear in mind the numbers who escaped after the failure of the rebellion. The fact that a rebel was not executed does not imply leniency when that rebel was not available. Many of the leaders escaped, especially from the west country.
Examples - Dorset, Courtenay, Sir Robert Willoughby and his brother, Edgcombe...
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 16:41, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote:

Thank you so much. Is this from Horrox? How do these numbers compare to other kings?
On Jan 2, 2018 5:58 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury None
Devon and Cornwall None (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'. Hope this helps. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know....
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch.. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase.. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 04:04:48
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Forgot to add. I think Richard was the forgotten heir, maybe because some thought that with the scoliosis he might not live that long (they didn't have our medical knowledge). That would make Clarence as the true heir a real target, either as someone to court, or as someone to eliminate depending who you were. Doug here: Would George need any other enemy than his brother, Edward? George had not only gone against Edward's wishes when he married Isabel Neville, he'd gone on to betray Edward, possibly even helping to spread the rumor that Edward was illegitimate. Considering the times, and the possibility that, for whatever reason/s, Edward and George just didn't get along (not unusual, really), have we ever consider that Edward's treatment of George wasn't all that unusual? Up to that incident at the Tower, of course... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 05:14:52
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Very interesting points Doug which are all plausible. With regard to your point that Buckingham may have told Richard about the pre-contract in Northampton, what if instead he told him that the Woodvilles were planning to attack and kill him on the way to London because they wanted to have control over E5? Buckingham could have discovered this from his wife possibly or because he was pretending to side with AW. There was a very good article in the Ricardian Bulletin some years ago outlining a possible plot that AW had planned to ambush Richard on the way to London. E5 had moved on from Northampton to Stony Stratford and that was AW's way of removing him from Richard's protection. Stony Stratford is near to the Woodville's property at Grafton. The article had maps and showed where the ambush could have taken place. It is probably online somewhere as the Bulletins are being put online. Just another thought to wrestle with! Doug here: The problem is that we don't know where Buckingham departed from, or when for that matter. Nor do we know when Richard left York. Or when Richard received Hastings' letter, do we? If Buckingham was at Brecon and headed northwards, his plans may have simply been to accompany the Woodville party as it journeyed to London. The same reasoning could also apply if Buckingham left from Mancetter. From the accounts we have, it appears Buckingham was at Northampton and that he had, as had Richard, just arrived. So it's possible he'd been following along behind the Woodville party for some time. Perhaps while doing so he'd discovered something about their intentions at Grafton Regis? If nothing else, he may have only discovered that Edward was to go on to Stony Stratford while the rest of his party stayed at Northampton and Richard took it from there. Based on his actions, Richard either already knew, or else learned, something at Northampton, something that lead him to arrest the leaders of the Woodville party. To me, that strongly suggests that, if some sort of ambush was planned to take place at Grafton Regis, Richard had gotten wind of it. It may have been something as simple as Richard discovering that, while Edward was at Stony Stratford, his guards, or most of them, were at Grafton Regis. Why? Why wouldn't the King's guards be guarding the King? Was something planned that Rivers, Scales and Vaughan didn't want to happen in Edward's presence? Once again, when Hastings' letter was received would be of paramount importance, if only to alert Richard to be careful. If I understand the geography correctly, Grafton Regis is sited between Northampton and Stony Stratford, so if anything was planned against Richard, it would be an excellent spot. With the Woodville party split between Northampton and Stony Stratford, any ambush at Grafton Regis would have Richard being attacked while being sandwiched between Woodville supporters. OTOH, just when Richard left York might indicate that Richard had already received Hastings' letter and was hurrying south to get to London no later than the Woodville party. Then again, Richard may have gotten that letter just before or as he arrived at Northampton and so the meeting with Buckingham would then likely have been sheer chance. In either case, it seems to me likely that it was the contents of that letter that led to Richard's actions regarding Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. Would attempting have Edward crowned, and the possible re-staffing of the Council (at the direction of the new king, of course!), without the presence of the Protector been grounds for arresting Rivers, Scales and Vaughan? Because if it was, then there may not have been any ambush planned that Buckingham could reveal to Richard and prompt those arrests. Going by Richard's actions, the arrest of of Rivers, Scales and Vaughan; it appears to me that Richard believed they were, at the very least, over-reaching their authority and, in doing so, warranted detention. If there also was some sort of plot against Richard's freedom or life, then that would further support their arrests. And, of course, had Rivers, Scales and Vaughan planned to capture or kill Richard at Grafton Regis, then their later executions for treason are fully explained. They weren't executed for any participation in the Woodville/Morton/Hastings' plot against Richard; they were executed for their previous attempt on the life of the Protector. Further than that, I can't say. Doug Who vaguely remembers a previous mentioning of that article and will have to look it up.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 05:45:43
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Re your first question Doug I reckon there should be another degree of difficulty in Masterchef when two squabbling five year olds are inserted into the kitchen. Luckily they have now be 'posted' home! Doug here: And here I thought it was hard just trying to get everything to the table at the same time! Hilary concluded: Going back to Hastings you know there is another motive for the Woodvilles wanting to get rid of him other than his support of Richard and potential influence on Edward V. As I've said many times, the Greys (of Groby) and the Hastings family had been in gang warfare for the dominance of Leicestershire for a long time (and were still marauding in 1515). The squabbling High Sheriffs in neighbouring Warwickshire had just been contained by the Beauchamps and then Richard Neville. When Clarence took over Edward continually meddled to undermine his control and did this by virtually inviting Hastings and the Greys to step in. After the death of Clarence, Hastings's influence had extended to Coventry - then one of the top ten cities which made him virtually Lord of the Midlands south of the Trent. That was some prize (and probably another reason why after the death of Hastings Richard lost Bosworth)! With Hastings out of the way and attainted that left the way wide open for the Greys. Doug here: Well, the saying is Politics makes strange bedfellows! We know that, with Richard as king, so the Woodvilles would definitely be out. We also know that Richard held Hastings' reputation as a womanizer and his cavortings with Edward against him. So he'd almost certainly be out, or definitely removed from his lucrative positions as Lord Chamberlain, Lieutenant of Calais, Chamberlain of the Exchequer, and Master of the Mint. Then there were all those properties in the Midlands possibly at risk. The only way forward, if they wanted to retain the positions they either currently held or had held, was getting rid of the one person who stood in their way  Richard. I really think there was more than enough of a common interest to get them to act together, at least in the short term. Now, what would have happened after Richard was dead is something else. If they were were still fighting in 1515, then I'd say the honeymoon period would have likely been a short one. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-03 10:41:49
Hilary Jones
I agree with all this reasoning
Two little points:
Firstly notice that Dorset was in a real position of power. And to state the obvious Dorset was a Grey. Every reason to take the opportunity to get rid of Hastings and rule the Midlands
Secondly Horrox suggests that the Talbots tacitly supported the 1483 rebellions. I doubt this was to do with a slur on Eleanor. One wonders what overtures AW had been making to old Lancastrians (and indeed the Welsh given his relationship with the Stradlings) from his base at Ludlow. H
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 14:42:59 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:


Doug: I find it interesting that you use the word desperate to describe Anthony Woodville's actions, because the impression I get is that, while Edward's overall health mightn't give cause for any particular worries about this disease or that, if one's position was so completely dependent on that one particular person, as Woodville's was, then it would make sense to prepare for the worst ... As Protector, Richard would be charged with running the kingdom, but did the Protectorship automatically carry with it the control of Edward V's person?
I am inclined to agree with you here, and I don't think it would make sense for AW or any of the Woodvilles to murder EIV or hasten his demise in any way. Becoming more insular and not being able to sit on a horse suggests that whatever was wrong with EIV was serious, and would have been known by those close to him. The horse reference is also suggestive of diabetes because of the tendency towards ulceration in sensitive areas such as the groin and upper thighs. Actually, I would also speculate that there was a family history of diabetes because other Plantagenets who were tall and overweight in middle age had similar undefined health problems. John of Gaunt was obese and had ulceration in the groin area (often suggested as an STI, but diabetes is a better fit), the Black Prince may have had something similar and Henry VIII was also obese and had leg ulcers. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence does indicate that his health had been in general decline for some time, which has a lot of relevance to AW's intentions, and stopping Richard becoming Protector would have been essential to maintaining his position. As far as I know, as Protector, Richard would have had control of Edward V's person, and AW had every reason to fear being completely left out in the cold. If not exactly desperate, AW had every reason to be extremely concerned..

Doug:While Buckingham might have known of the Pre-Contract, it seems more likely to me that any information Buckingham might have passed on to Richard at Northampton was about a Woodville plot to either capture or kill Richard. Which also explains why the Rivers, Scales and Vaughan were executed after Hastings' plot was foiled  they'd already been involved in one plot against Richard and, depending on how closely they'd been guarded, may have been involved, or at least had information, about Hastings' plot as well. Even if their being in custody prevented them from taking an active part in the plot, failure to inform Richard of the plot would have been treason.
Even if he wasn't actively involved in a Woodville plot, if Buckingham was in contract with AW, he may have deduced something from his behaviour, things he said or something someone else such as Catherine Woodville told him that made him certain that he would take drastic action to prevent Richard's protectorship. Given the events leading up to Stony Stratford, warning Richard would have been Buckingham's priority at the point. I have always been sceptical that Hastings would get involved with a conspiracy with the Woodvilles, given the history between them, but that would depend on how strongly Hastings felt about EV.

Doug:The only thing I can currently come up with is that Buckingham had not only had Morton placed in his custody but, after the coronation was also in Morton's company in Brecon and, quite likely, open to manipulation by Morton. Such manipulation would, or so it seems to me, have been based on Buckingham's ego at not being included in Richard's inner circle. ... The only male Woodville remaining was Dorset. Henry Tudor was a nobody whose support would be gained by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Obviously, the only person capable of taking the role of advising (even managing?) Edward V would have been Buckingham himself. Thus an alliance of Buckingham and the Woodvilles would satisfy the interests of both parties
Buckingham may have seen himself in a 'Kingmaker' role after having 'rescued' Richard from the Woodville plot (possibly also giving information that led to the disclosure of the precontract) and felt Richard owed him a huge debt of gratitude which was not repaid when Buckingham was left out of his 'inner circle.' Anyone could feel slighted under the circumstances, but an impulsive and egotistical person could easily be turned especially if manipulated by someone like Morton. However, I'm not convinced Buckingham was ever really interesting in restoring Edward V. If Richard's rewards were unsatisfactory, it was equally predictable that Woodvilles would close ranks too. The problem with the Woodvilles in 1483, was that while Dorset may have taken his place, along with EW as EV's most senior advisor, Lionel, Edward and Richard Woodville were all still alive (until 1484, 1488 and 1491 respectively.) Richard of Shrewsbury would play major role later on. This is the Woodville clique that I envision as ultimately sidelining both Buckingham and HT. Lionel, as a Bishop could expect a particularly central role, and Edward, Richard and RofS would probably marry and have their own heirs, while the Woodville sisters and their husbands would be rewarded but kept at bay because they may have their own agendas. I also suspect that MB may have felt the same way, and the marriage of HT and EofY was something that would only go ahead if circumstances worked out in a way that it was in her and HT's best interests.
Doug: As far as we know, Edward kept his mouth shut. So who, if anyone, would Eleanor have told? I would say he wasn't one of the original two or three Eleanor told. I doubt Rivers had heard anything about the Pre-Contract, or else his trip from Ludlow to London wouldn't have been so leisurely, surely? He'd have taken Edward and headed for London as fast as possible. Edward being an anointed wouldn't, in and of itself, have protected him if knowledge of the Pre-Contract became known. What would have protected him was the timing of his coronation and anointing  before Richard had taken up his position as Protector. During that period, even if for only a day or two, the Woodvilles and their adherents would be in a position to change the composition of the Council, appoint a Constable, an Admiral, summon a Parliament and, most importantly, threaten anyone who mentioned the Pre-Contract..
I think Buckingham would have been told the 'family secret' by his mother. If Eleanor told anyone, it would probably be her immediate family and possibly the Catesby family who were consulted for legal advice. While they may have felt powerless to protest, when the precontract was revealed, the Talbot family never objected to a story that would have been a slur on Eleanor's memory, which implied that they knew. Buckingham may not have known whether what he had been told was credible, but he may have passed what he knew onto Richard, who then investigated the matter - while supporting EV, assuming it wasn't true until provable. Then, Stillington came forward with the proof...As for AW, if he was worried about the precontract, it would have made sense to move even faster to make sure EV was crowned, then suppressed the information as you say. However, Clarence's suspicions about EW's paranoia in 1470s are also interesting, and if it was the precontract that caused her insecurity, then the other Woodvilles probably did know. Perhaps AW was overconfident and too focused on pushing out Richard to worry about the precontract.
Nico

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-03 10:46:11
Hilary Jones
Some of it is from Horrox, who like most, gets it from attainder lists of January 1484. Some is from a more in depth look at the individuals concerned. Needless to say the most difficult to trace are those who supposedly broke into the Tower. Attainder lists can be dangerous though. For example if you look at HT's attainder reversals they don't necessarily mean that the people fought for him at Bosworth - some had been dead for 20 years. They were also so that old Lancastrian supporters could get their lands back - and of course support him. H
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 16:41:41 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

Thank you so much. Is this from Horrox? How do these numbers compare to other kings?
On Jan 2, 2018 5:58 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury None
Devon and Cornwall None (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'. Hope this helps. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know...
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch.. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase.. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 11:12:34
Hilary Jones
I would agree that the Woodvilles don't seem to have known anything about the Pre Contract. As you say they would have acted with greater haste. I think an anointed king does have more significance.
Like you, I'm still puzzled about the journey and the meetings, after all it wasn't as though they had mobile phones and could catch up with where they had all got to. And there is that sort of harmonious period which is implied by the piece of paper which contains Richard's and the young Edward's names. It does seem as though someone alerted Richard to the plot during the meeting and things took a different turn.
As for who knew about the Pre Contract, I do think there are things like 'old family secrets' which don't come out for years until someone has died, or until a crisis point makes them come out. I would still put money on Anne Beauchamp as Eleanor's aunt and someone who actually attended her mother's funeral and met her. It's the place where that sort of thing is discussed. Who else? I don't know, but MB (and Cis) were in the sort of Cranford afternoon tea circle. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't muttered there. It's very much a woman's thing. H
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 15:33:39 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Doug, I agree about the routes. Before the MI the old "London Road" from the North and Midlands used to pass through Stony Stratford and is close to the A5 (Watling) which runs near Northampton and Milton Keynes. So Richard would have passed that way when he'd crossed from the AI from York. Same with Ludlow, in fact AW could have headed east towards what is now south of Birmingham and down the A5 at Nuneaton bringing him out on the old London Road at Stony Stratford. But you're right Brecon is a puzzle.I would have thought you would have come out much 'lower down', nowadays it would be the M4, and not need to touch the Midlands at all? Do we know he came from Brecon? His route would make much more sense if he came from Mancetter Staffs when he would be following the same route as the others. Doug here: It rather appears as if the determining factor would be who Buckingham meant to meet up with, and when, wouldn't it? Presuming, of course, that he meant to meet up with anyone! Because there's also the possibility, a very good one, that my idea that Buckingham ever intended to meet up with Richard is just that  an idea with no basis in fact. If I recall it correctly, the Woodville party had already passed through Stony Stratford and were making preparations for their nightly bivouac when Richard arrived at the town. But I don't recall any mention of when Richard and Buckingham met. Did the two parties encounter each other as they each approached the town from different directions? Could it simply have been a matter of Buckingham merely following along behind the Woodville party? Thus his meeting with Richard would have been fortuitous. And if Buckingham's meeting with Richard was sheer chance, wouldn't that also likely mean that it was that letter from Hastings that first tipped Richard off about the Woodville plans? I have to admit that I'm puzzled by all this. If Richard was first informed of the Woodville plans for a hurried coronation of Edward by Hastings' letter, and if the meeting between Richard and Buckingham was by chance, then one possibility is that Buckingham was in the dark about the Woodville intentions until Richard told him. Which, while it doesn't rule out Buckingham knowing about the Pre-Contract, does seem to indicate to me that he didn't. If Buckingham knew about the Pre-Contract, whether he was in Brecon or Mancetter, wouldn't his first action after hearing of Edward IV's death have been to immediately head for London? But from what we know, he didn't. If the good Duke was in Brecon, the fastest way to London would have meant his crossing the Severn at Gloucester and heading east. If he was at Mancetter, why did he wait so long to depart that he was, apparently, following the Woodville party? Tis a puzzlement! Hilary continued: You make some very good points about communications, it would have been a very tedious route going from west to east, north to south. We're told that Edward's death took Richard by surprise but perhaps, as Nico suggests, some people had better knowledge of Edward's true state of health and Buckingham was in that loop? I'd not heard the diabetes theory before, Nico, nor did I know that its symptoms coincide with some of the things we know about Edward. The more you think about the young undefeated Edward, the more odd it is that he chose to hole himself up in London. Perhaps it's too easy to label someone with things like laziness? (Actually it's Ross who says he was one of the most hardworking monarchs when in came to legislation and paperwork - his writing is on a lot of documents). Doug here: If Edward was suffering from side-effects of diabetes, that would, as you say, help explain his actions. Circulatory problems are one symptom, so travel, other than by boat/barge on the Thames, would likely be avoided. It might also mean that, when Edward did travel, it would be for short distances and, once at his destination, Edward would likely stay for some time. I recall someone, somewhere saying that one of the reasons Richard distrusted Hastings was that Hastings was known for procuring women for Edward. Not just that Edward and Hastings went whoring together, but that Hastings brought women to Edward for his sexual pleasure. Perhaps another sign of Edward's increasing inability to move about on his own? Or not. OTOH, paperwork, meeting with officials and such activities wouldn't necessarily require Edward to move about that much; after all, subjects come to the King, not the other way round! Hilary continued: If Buckingham knew about the Pre Contract and about the fragility of Edward's health he could have pondered on this for some time. In fact both the Woodville actions and his actions bear the signs of pre-planning, as Collins says. It's only when the Hastings letter alerts Richard and leads to Rivers' arrest that the cat is thrown amongst the pigeons. FWIW I don't think Buckingham was working with the Woodvilles, I think he saw on opportunity for himself. After all, Edward had deprived him of some of his lands. Doug here: FWIW, I don't think either Buckingham or the Woodvilles knew about the Pre-Contract before Edward died. If any of the Woodvilles had known, why did Rivers shilli-shally around? Had he known, wouldn't his first, over-riding impulse have been to get Edward to London, get Edward crowned, have the newly-crowned king do a reshuffle of the Council members (under his uncles' supervision of course) and, should word of the Pre-Contract then get out, denounce it as just a plot against the king. If Buckingham had known about the Pre-Contract, why wouldn't he have headed straight for London and travelled as fast as possible? If only to prevent the coronation of someone he knew to be a bastard? Literally. Even if he himself could only produce rumors or recount whispered conversations, that would be enough to halt any attempts to rush through Edward's coronation. Wouldn't responsible people make at least some sort of mental plan for what they'd do when Edward died, but limit making overt plans for that eventuality? Openly making plans for when the king died would have been risky, wouldn't it? An enemy might even call it imagining the King's death... Hilary concluded: And Richard? I'm with you and I don't reckon he had a clue about any of this. For one thing he'd been away with his mind on other things really since the death of Clarence and it could have been that he felt Buckingham, as a cousin, might have filled the Clarence void? What is even more intriguing is how long all this had been going on and what part it might well have played in the demise of Clarence. Just my musings. Doug here: The idea that Richard may have considered Buckingham in the role of some sort of advisor makes sense. Members of the royal family were expected to fill various roles in government; some of which were almost entirely ornamental, others with actual responsibilities. From his later actions, it would appear that Buckingham thought so anyway and was apparently, to put it mildly, miffed when he was excluded from the latter. Perhaps Richard viewed Buckingham as being too much like George? Buckingham's position as a royal Duke would mean that Richard would have to give him various honors befitting that rank, but not necessarily place him in any position of great responsibility. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Buckingham's Rebellion an

2018-01-03 11:39:46
Hilary Jones
Hi only 29 eventually fled to join HT. Of them 8 were core plotters like the Woodvilles. In fact some like Jasper and De Vere were already abroad. Take another 5 away as servants of Giles Daubeny and you're left with 16:
Thomas Brandon, Humphrey Cheney, John Cheney, Robert Cheney, Giles Daubeny, William Berkeley, Thomas Arundel (later), Edward Courtenay, Bishop Peter Courtenay, John Welles, Robert Willoughby, William Brandon, John Gainsford, Nicholas Gainsford (Usher to EW), Edward Poynings, Richard Edgecombe.
No real surprises among that bunch. I think one has to look the many leading rebels who got away with just attainder - Thomas Bourchier, Walter Hungerford, Hugh Luttrell to name but a tiny number of the remaining 130 and that of the original 164 only 40 are known to have fought at Bosworth.
It would seem that the numbers who defected to HT have been much exaggerated in the latter telling. Hope this helps..H
On Tuesday, 2 January 2018, 22:14:05 GMT, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Karen and Hilary,


If you are looking at the numbers of rebels executed, it is necessary to bear in mind the numbers who escaped after the failure of the rebellion. The fact that a rebel was not executed does not imply leniency when that rebel was not available. Many of the leaders escaped, especially from the west country.
Examples - Dorset, Courtenay, Sir Robert Willoughby and his brother, Edgcombe...
RegardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 at 16:41, Karen O karenoder4@... []<> wrote:

Thank you so much. Is this from Horrox? How do these numbers compare to other kings?
On Jan 2, 2018 5:58 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Hi Karen, Here we go:
At Exeter Thomas St Leger, Richard's brother-in-law and Woodville/Haute relativeand Thomas Rameney, MB's messenger
Salisbury none (which is very lenient considering the number of rebels)
Kent George Browne MP Ex-Sheriff of Kent (but his brothers were only attainted) and William Clifford Squire of the Body
Newbury None
Devon and Cornwall None (like Salisbury pretty lenient)
London Ralph Clifford, Stephen Ireland (Tower Wardrober), William Davy (Pardoner), Robert Rushe (Sarjeant of London), John Smith (Groom of the Stirrup) and Henry Stafford - to do with plot to break into the Tower
That should add up to 10 out of 164. As Horrox says, apart from St Leger and the Tower 'gang' no-one really knows why the others were singled out because the Commission papers have conveniently 'vanished'. Hope this helps. H
On Monday, 1 January 2018, 12:47:01 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I have been looking for a list of the actual people Richard had executed after the rebellion. How many? Is it on the internet anywhere?
On Dec 31, 2017 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <@ yahoogroups..com> wrote:

I've been mulling this over during the last few days (which have been spent in the kitchen:)).
You know if the whole Richard story was a work of fiction your agent would send it back to you and tell you to take Buckingham out. He just doesn't fit. Everyone else, like them or loath them, acts rationally to support their own aims. Buckingham appears out of nowhere, I think the last time he met Richard was at the marriage of Richard of Shrewsbury, and suddenly becomes his best buddy. Out of affection? No. There must be something to be gained from it and that says to me that Buckingham knew that Richard would have the upper edge over the Woodvilles. How could he know that? Rivers hadn't even been arrested yet. The only piece of knowledge which would make him think that is if he knew about the Pre Contract and the likelihood of it now coming to light. Then he would be in exactly the right place at the right time. From whom - one of the ladies mentioned below? Which one? I don't know....
There's one other piece of knowledge we don't have which is very surprising given that this period is supposed to be rife with rumours. That is why Richard and Buckingham fell out. Richard's anguish over Buckingham's betrayal rings down through the centuries - the 'most untrue creature'. Rarely do we get the opportunity to come that close to the soul of any monarch.. Some historians have it that Richard discovered he had killed the princes, but then as both of you say, why rebel in their name? Could it be that Richard found out that he had 'set up' Hastings? In other words he had made Richard kill an innocent man. I truly can't buy Hastings going over to the Woodvilles. His family had hated the Greys for generations and would continue to do so.
Finally, a lot of this comes from Croyland and John Russell has been named as a potential chronicler. I'd like to know more about him. If I could prove he was related to the Russells of Strensham (and they did have clerics in their family) then it puts him bang in the middle of the Talbot/Hampton/Berkshire rebels (and Stillington) set. He's very elusive to chase.. We know he has the 'right' Wykhamist background - Winchester and New College Oxford - as did they, and his first prebendary was at Salisbury, but it's not helped by there being so many Russells and so many Johns. I reckon there needs to be more work on him.
Happy New Year all. H
On Sunday, 31 December 2017, 01:43:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Nico wrote: Your theory does fit and I agree that timing was essential. Buckingham and/or Morton must have started the rumours,... Doug here: I'm likely arguing against what I've posted in the past, but what do you think of the possibility that the rumors were simply the result of that failed rescue attempt? I believe Croyland simply states that rumors were spread, thus giving the impression that the dissemination of the rumors was deliberate, but what if it wasn't? However, and once again, if the rumors were the result of the failed rescue attempt, and presuming the original intention of the rebellion was to return Edward V to the throne, then there had to be someone who knew Edward was still alive and was in a position to say the rumors were just that: rumors. Someone such as his mother? Who we know was in communications with Margaret Beaufort, trying to arrange support for re-instating Edward? We know Margaret had links with Croyland Abbey, so cold she be the source of that entry? Among the people who'd be in possession of knowledge about Edward's status, Margaret would, because of her links with Elizabeth Woodville, certainly be high on the list. Which would also, or so it seems to me, increase the chances that whenever the chronicler made that entry, no mention was made about the boys still being alive <b>because that knowledge was widespread and didn't need refuting</b>. In the bits of Margaret's Attainder Carol provided, Margaret was accused of ...[raising loans] of great sums, as well within the City of London, as in other places in this Realm... Could some of that money gone for the failed rescue attempt? Or am I off on another wild-goose chase? If the rumors were deliberately spread, however, then Buckingham and/or Morton are the most likely originators but, lacking the speedy means of communications available nowadays, for such a rumor to have maximum impact it would require coordination that I don't think would have been possible in 1483. It just seems to me to be an awfully risky venture, ginning up a rebellion only to announce half-way into it that the person you're asking others to die for is  dead. Nico continued: ...but I am increasingly curious about whether Buckingham was ever really in favour of restoring Edward V. He may have been drawn into the plot through his wife, Catherine Woodville, but I can see where the temptation to pursue his own ambitions may have got the better of him at an early stage. After the revelation of the precontract, his own claim was better. The former Edward V was an illegitimate son of a former King and a child, whereas Buckingham was an adult with an undisputed claim through the Stafford line, and could he really rely on the Woodvilles to exceed or even match what he had from Richard? Playing a supporting role to an bastard boy King, who would have been under the control of the surviving male Woodvilles was an uncertain and unsatisfactory future. His relationship with the Woodville family can't have been good, especially after Stony Stratford and his collaboration in the deposition of Edward V. Doug here: As we don't have any concrete evidence one way or the other, I still tend towards the belief that, at least at the outset, Buckingham's involvement was intended to restore Edward V to the throne. Presuming Edward was re-instated, the Pre-Contract could, as it has since, been denounced as a forgery by Richard so he could take the throne. As for Edward being controlled by the surviving male Woodvilles, I can only think of one  Dorset. Rivers, Grey and Vaughan had been executed at Pontrefact in June. In fact, and once married to Elizabeth of York, Henry would have been third in line to the throne...at least until Edward or Richard had any sons.
Nico continued: As for why he turned on Richard, ego and ambition surely played a part, but there was probably something else. However, If he thought the Edward V plot could be successful, he may have had a reasonable fear for his own safety. There could also have been area of tension between the two of them, that has been unrecorded by history. This could explain why Buckingham didn't simply expose the plot to Richard. Doug here: Well, if Buckingham's ego and ambition were great enough, mightn't he have first gotten involved by picturing himself as the new Kingmaker, stepping into Warwick's boots as it were? If those rumors did originate with Buckingham, or even Morton, then, at some point, Buckingham changed his aim from becoming the next Warwick to becoming the next King. Could any tension between Buckingham and Richard have been nothing more than Richard recognizing that Buckingham's ego just didn't represent his abilities? Which, FWIW, might have been Morton's line of attack: Here was Henry Stafford, of royal descent and sidelined again by a York! First Edward IV, then Richard and, if he continued his support of Edward V, there was the risk he'd be pushed aside yet again. Now, if he was king... Nico continued:
The Woodville factor is also relevant to the question of what Buckingham had to offer MB. The Woodvilles were an unpopular clique who worked for their own benefit. The marriage between Elizabeth and Henry would have been helpful in Woodville regime, as it would satisfy MB's main need, which was Henry's return. Being a brother in law of the King would certainly bring some rewards, but everything about the Woodvilles suggests that they were a close circle who wouldn't offer much power to outsiders, even inlaws - especially ones with such strong links to Henry VI. Buckingham with stronger ties of blood, affinity and possibly friendship would be certain to give Henry a more powerful position. The proposed marriage with EoY would be of less use at this point, but in the event of Edward V's successful restoration, it was a good plan B. Doug here: If the original aim of both Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort was to return Edward V, with Buckingham benefiting by taking what he considered his rightful place at the right hand of the king and Margaret benefiting by getting Henry back and Henry's marriage to Elizabeth of York forming a close connection to Edward V. And as the Woodvilles, other Edward and Richard, were down to only Dorset as the senior male, an alliance between the Woodvilles, Buckingham and Margaret Beaufort makes sense to me. There's also the support of the entire Stanley clan in the offing  presuming Edward did get the throne back. Then there'd also be any non-Woodville, anti-Ricardian Yorkists to be gathered in. Plus any left-over Lancastrians that might follow Margaret and Henry into Edward's camp. Whether the remaining representative/s of the Woodvilles could manage all these differing groups, I really don't know; only that it was their only chance to return to power.
Nico concluded: A few months ago, there was a discussion about Peter Hancock's theory about Catesby and Hastings, and who knew about the precontract before it was revealed. There was some discussion about Anne Beauchamp. Of all the people who could have had access to information about the precontract, Buckingham's mother, the other Margaret Beaufort, was certainly well placed to have found out, being Eleanor Talbot's first cousin, who was around the same age as ET, and who lived near her. ET's mother appears to have been close to her sisters (of the whole blood). If Buckingham learned of the precontract from his mother, he may have told MB. Or perhaps she knew anyway, because, the other Margaret Beaufort was once her sister in law. I'm not sure where this fits in, and it is speculation but I'm wondering if this rather incestuous circle knowing such an important secret before Richard did was the source of problems between Richard and Buckingham. Maybe Richard was never entirely comfortable with MB or Buckingham having a close relationship with her. Doug here: As for where any knowledge of the Pre-Contract would fit in, mightn't that knowledge have been the reason the Council accepted whatever evidence Stillington produced? While Edward IV was king, knowledge of the Pre-Contract certainly wouldn't be a general topic of conversation. Or so one might think, but that wouldn't preclude various people being in possession of that knowledge; it would only mean they didn't talk about it. Once Edward IV was dead, however, possession of such knowledge became a life-or-death matter. If, for example, any of the Woodvilles had learned of it, it would definitely give them a reason to have Edward V crowned as quickly as possibly. A greater reason, to my way of thinking, than simply trying to out-maneuver Richard in his position as Protector. If word about the Pre-Contract got out before Edward was crowned; well, we know what happened. Now, what would have happened had Edward already been crowned? I don't think Richard would have believed, without some form of proof, the claim that his brother was secretly married to someone when he married Elizabeth Woodville; not even if the claim had come from Buckingham. Which is why Stillington's proofs, whatever they were, were so important. And if the proofs were then added to claims by reputable people that they had known of the Pre-Contract but, for obvious reasons, had said nothing at the time  well, that would be a different matter. Knowledge of the Pre-Contract, even belatedly, for the Woodvilles, OTOH... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 11:47:35
Hilary Jones
If Edward really had diabetes (and it does sound highly likely) then George's supposed conjoring the death of the King must have touched a very raw nerve. And he was the rightful heir, however much Edward buried his head in the sand!
For the rest I reckon it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes George had married Isabel but Edward had forbidden a Burgundian marriage. Edward had married who he wanted. Yes George had betrayed Edward but so had Warwick who had been let down by Edward and had supported the House of York through good times and bad.
And it was almost as though Edward had deliberately set up George to fail viz undermining and belittling him in Warwickshire. I know you disagree, but of the two I find George by far the most human - possibly because of his very real devotion to Isabel. H

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 04:05:03 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Forgot to add. I think Richard was the forgotten heir, maybe because some thought that with the scoliosis he might not live that long (they didn't have our medical knowledge). That would make Clarence as the true heir a real target, either as someone to court, or as someone to eliminate depending who you were. Doug here: Would George need any other enemy than his brother, Edward? George had not only gone against Edward's wishes when he married Isabel Neville, he'd gone on to betray Edward, possibly even helping to spread the rumor that Edward was illegitimate. Considering the times, and the possibility that, for whatever reason/s, Edward and George just didn't get along (not unusual, really), have we ever consider that Edward's treatment of George wasn't all that unusual? Up to that incident at the Tower, of course... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-03 11:55:58
Hilary Jones
I think we overestimate any power Hastings had. Plantagenets gave titles, they didn't give power and that's probably one reason for Buckingham's defection. He realised he was just Poo Bah but could do nothing.
The only time I can think of of Hastings acting on his own was in Calais, when he sent troops to help Margaret. For that he received a sharp slap on the wrists and was called home immediately. Can anyone else think of anything?
The Tudors, on the other hand (there was a post about Mary) had to give power to build support and a new gentry-based aristocracy. But they counterbalanced this by a huge intelligence network. So use your power wrong and it was the block. H
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 05:45:58 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Re your first question Doug I reckon there should be another degree of difficulty in Masterchef when two squabbling five year olds are inserted into the kitchen. Luckily they have now be 'posted' home! Doug here: And here I thought it was hard just trying to get everything to the table at the same time! Hilary concluded: Going back to Hastings you know there is another motive for the Woodvilles wanting to get rid of him other than his support of Richard and potential influence on Edward V. As I've said many times, the Greys (of Groby) and the Hastings family had been in gang warfare for the dominance of Leicestershire for a long time (and were still marauding in 1515). The squabbling High Sheriffs in neighbouring Warwickshire had just been contained by the Beauchamps and then Richard Neville. When Clarence took over Edward continually meddled to undermine his control and did this by virtually inviting Hastings and the Greys to step in. After the death of Clarence, Hastings's influence had extended to Coventry - then one of the top ten cities which made him virtually Lord of the Midlands south of the Trent. That was some prize (and probably another reason why after the death of Hastings Richard lost Bosworth)! With Hastings out of the way and attainted that left the way wide open for the Greys. Doug here: Well, the saying is Politics makes strange bedfellows! We know that, with Richard as king, so the Woodvilles would definitely be out. We also know that Richard held Hastings' reputation as a womanizer and his cavortings with Edward against him. So he'd almost certainly be out, or definitely removed from his lucrative positions as Lord Chamberlain, Lieutenant of Calais, Chamberlain of the Exchequer, and Master of the Mint. Then there were all those properties in the Midlands possibly at risk. The only way forward, if they wanted to retain the positions they either currently held or had held, was getting rid of the one person who stood in their way  Richard. I really think there was more than enough of a common interest to get them to act together, at least in the short term. Now, what would have happened after Richard was dead is something else. If they were were still fighting in 1515, then I'd say the honeymoon period would have likely been a short one. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-03 14:04:04
ricard1an
Ah, the Stradlings again! In a position to guard the Glamorgan coast and we know that AW had written to Dymock asking for letters to prove he had the right to raise troups in Wales.
Mary

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

2018-01-03 14:10:14
ricard1an
Am I right in thinking that Richard supported Hastings in this?
Mary

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

2018-01-03 17:10:23
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I quite agree with you concerning the Plantagenets holding onto power, but what about money? And lands? The positions Edward had bestowed on Hastings were money-makers; literally in regards to being Master of the Mint, possibly as well with Chamberlain of the Exchequer. Then there were those properties in the Midlands; how many would Richard want back? Perhaps none, but could Hastings count on that? Especially if, as I suspect, those properties hadn't been deeded to Hastings, rather he'd only been given their income. Was that the case? Your point about the squabbling/fighting continuing into the next century is a good example of what did happen, and while it's certainly likely squabbling would have continued (had Edward remained king), perhaps the fighting might not have? It certainly would have been in the Woodvilles' interests to limit hostilities between two such important supporters. Whether the Woodvilles would have tried to do so is another thing, of course. It would likely have come down to who was the most dedicated supporter of the Woodvilles' interests. The same, I think, applies to the point I made about the marriage of convenience between Margaret of Anjou and Warwick. It was obviously centered on removing Edward from the throne and reinstating Henry, and both were united, for slightly different reasons possibly, on those goals. Once Henry had been restored, however, the question would then become; Who was to be Henry's main advisor? I'd be more than willing to bet that thought crossed the minds of both Warwick or Margaret! But, once again, that was a question to be answered after the immediate problem was solved. Which, in Warwick's and Margaret's case, was the removal of Edward and his replacement with Henry. In the Woodville's and Hastings' case it was the removal of Richard as a potential King, with the subsequent squashing of any official support concerning the validity of the Pre-Contract. Doug Hilary wrote: I think we overestimate any power Hastings had. Plantagenets gave titles, they didn't give power and that's probably one reason for Buckingham's defection. He realised he was just Poo Bah but could do nothing. The only time I can think of of Hastings acting on his own was in Calais, when he sent troops to help Margaret. For that he received a sharp slap on the wrists and was called home immediately.. Can anyone else think of anything? The Tudors, on the other hand (there was a post about Mary) had to give power to build support and a new gentry-based aristocracy. But they counterbalanced this by a huge intelligence network. So use your power wrong and it was the block.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-04 10:24:08
Hilary Jones
Indeed. Have I been daft here wasn't AW also at one point Lord of the Wight - which would explain the connection between the Woodvilles and the Southampton rebels? And of course he was Lord of Caernarvon. I wonder how long the Woodvilles had been playing a double game - and more importantly with whom? H

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 14:04:10 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Ah, the Stradlings again! In a position to guard the Glamorgan coast and we know that AW had written to Dymock asking for letters to prove he had the right to raise troups in Wales.


Mary

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

2018-01-04 10:25:24
Hilary Jones
Yes both Richard and George wanted to help Margaret but were forbidden to do so by Edward. Another one of his kind family gestures. H
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 14:12:42 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Am I right in thinking that Richard supported Hastings in this?


Mary

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

2018-01-04 10:42:48
Hilary Jones
I honestly don't think it would be Richard who wanted lands back, after all he got Warwick and Kenilworth castles which were the chief prize in the region. Why would he seek to alienate Hastings who like himself had been a good servant to his brother - and a good soldier? On the other hand Richard wouldn't have much problem upsetting the Greys, who in his mind were responsible for Edward's irresponsible marriage.
FWIW Hastings' brothers, Richard and Ralph fought for Richard at Bosworth, as did his nephew Sir John Ferrers, who died there.
Any time you want a bit of amusement take a look in the Leicestershire archives, the feud is very entertaining - fights in the street, forest ambushes, raiding of boat-sheds at Henley on Thames. Something which a monarch probably wouldn't be too bothered about but which must have been extremely annoying to the locals. Like the regular Saturday night pub brawl.
I suppose the other thing which convinces me that Hastings was essentially a 'good egg' is that he is everywhere in Leicestershire - schools, roads. The Greys, not really. H
On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 17:10:33 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, I quite agree with you concerning the Plantagenets holding onto power, but what about money? And lands? The positions Edward had bestowed on Hastings were money-makers; literally in regards to being Master of the Mint, possibly as well with Chamberlain of the Exchequer. Then there were those properties in the Midlands; how many would Richard want back? Perhaps none, but could Hastings count on that? Especially if, as I suspect, those properties hadn't been deeded to Hastings, rather he'd only been given their income. Was that the case? Your point about the squabbling/fighting continuing into the next century is a good example of what did happen, and while it's certainly likely squabbling would have continued (had Edward remained king), perhaps the fighting might not have? It certainly would have been in the Woodvilles' interests to limit hostilities between two such important supporters. Whether the Woodvilles would have tried to do so is another thing, of course. It would likely have come down to who was the most dedicated supporter of the Woodvilles' interests. The same, I think, applies to the point I made about the marriage of convenience between Margaret of Anjou and Warwick. It was obviously centered on removing Edward from the throne and reinstating Henrbrothery, and both were united, for slightly different reasons possibly, on those goals. Once Henry had been restored, however, the question would then become; Who was to be Henry's main advisor? I'd be more than willing to bet that thought crossed the minds of both Warwick or Margaret! But, once again, that was a question to be answered after the immediate problem was solved. Which, in Warwick's and Margaret's case, was the removal of Edward and his replacement with Henry. In the Woodville's and Hastings' case it was the removal of Richard as a potential King, with the subsequent squashing of any official support concerning the validity of the Pre-Contract. Doug Hilary wrote: I think we overestimate any power Hastings had. Plantagenets gave titles, they didn't give power and that's probably one reason for Buckingham's defection.. He realised he was just Poo Bah but could do nothing. The only time I can think of of Hastings acting on his own was in Calais, when he sent troops to help Margaret. For that he received a sharp slap on the wrists and was called home immediately.. Can anyone else think of anything? The Tudors, on the other hand (there was a post about Mary) had to give power to build support and a new gentry-based aristocracy. But they counterbalanced this by a huge intelligence network. So use your power wrong and it was the block.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-04 15:29:22
ricard1an
Why would you fight for someone who supposedly executed your brother without a trial? You will note that I have said supposedly because I don't think that Richard would have done that. Also I am beginning to lean more and more towards the Woodvilles being the arch plotters and MB just tagging along.Obviously we can't be certain but lots of bits of the jigsaw would fit that scenario.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-04 15:59:05
Durose David
HilaryEdward Woodville was made Lord of the Isle of Wight by Henry after Bosworth. When he took 500 archers to Brittany in 1488 they were all from the island. It appears to have been against Henry's wishes. There was only one survivor.
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 10:24, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Indeed. Have I been daft here wasn't AW also at one point Lord of the Wight - which would explain the connection between the Woodvilles and the Southampton rebels? And of course he was Lord of Caernarvon. I wonder how long the Woodvilles had been playing a double game - and more importantly with whom? H

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 14:04:10 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Ah, the Stradlings again! In a position to guard the Glamorgan coast and we know that AW had written to Dymock asking for letters to prove he had the right to raise troups in Wales.


Mary

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

2018-01-04 16:13:53
Hilary Jones
I've found out a bit more today. If you read Marie's post you'll see she talks about Maud Wayte, the daughter of William (or Edward Wayte) and Margaret Popham. She rightly says that Maud married Sir John Chalers (Scales) - Maud had been married before to William Vyell, Constable of Tintagel Castle. And all can be confirmed via IPMs.
Maud and John had three daughters, one of whom was Anne, who married as her second husband Gyles Wellesbourne. I hadn't heard of him but he was a retainer of William Stonor (of Hampton and 1483 rebel fame) and, on Richard's behalf, he escorted Buckingham to Salisbury for his execution. Meanwhile his brother Christopher had located Buckingham's wife and son for Richard. Seems to be right - Richard rewarded them.
Now these folk were operating deep in old Lancaster/Woodville territory. Were they spies, like the Brechers, or does this indicate that the Woodvilles wanted Buckingham out of the way fast? H

On Thursday, 4 January 2018, 15:41:22 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Why would you fight for someone who supposedly executed your brother without a trial? You will note that I have said supposedly because I don't think that Richard would have done that. Also I am beginning to lean more and more towards the Woodvilles being the arch plotters and MB just tagging along.Obviously we can't be certain but lots of bits of the jigsaw would fit that scenario.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-04 16:58:04
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I am inclined to agree with you here, and I don't think it would make sense for AW or any of the Woodvilles to murder EIV or hasten his demise in any way. Becoming more insular and not being able to sit on a horse suggests that whatever was wrong with EIV was serious, and would have been known by those close to him. The horse reference is also suggestive of diabetes because of the tendency towards ulceration in sensitive areas such as the groin and upper thighs. Actually, I would also speculate that there was a family history of diabetes because other Plantagenets who were tall and overweight in middle age had similar undefined health problems. John of Gaunt was obese and had ulceration in the groin area (often suggested as an STI, but diabetes is a better fit), the Black Prince may have had something similar and Henry VIII was also obese and had leg ulcers. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence does indicate that his health had been in general decline for some time, which has a lot of relevance to AW's intentions, and stopping Richard becoming Protector would have been essential to maintaining his position. As far as I know, as Protector, Richard would have had control of Edward V's person, and AW had every reason to fear being completely left out in the cold. If not exactly desperate, AW had every reason to be extremely concerned. Doug here: Although I knew about Henry VIII's leg ulcers, I hadn't known about Gaunt's health problems and, if I understand it correctly, a propensity for diabetes is linked genetically. It does seem to me that the actions of the various Woodvilles, especially before Edward's death, are those of people taking precautions for a not-unexpected event. If Edward wasn't exactly in failing health, it would clearly observable he wasn't in good health and might die unexpectedly. It would only make sense to be as ready as possible. Without, of course, appearing to be divying up the inheritance before the funeral... Nico continued: Even if he wasn't actively involved in a Woodville plot, if Buckingham was in contract with AW, he may have deduced something from his behaviour, things he said or something someone else such as Catherine Woodville told him that made him certain that he would take drastic action to prevent Richard's protectorship. Given the events leading up to Stony Stratford, warning Richard would have been Buckingham's priority at the point. I have always been sceptical that Hastings would get involved with a conspiracy with the Woodvilles, given the history between them, but that would depend on how strongly Hastings felt about EV. Doug here: Buckingham's itinerary is interesting. Whether he departed from Brecon or, as Hilary suggested, Mancetter, Buckingham certainly seems to have been trailing along fairly closely behind the Woodville party. A departure from Brecon could explain why the Woodville party was in the lead if only because the Woodvilles didn't have to travel as far. But that would also mean that Buckingham, for whatever reason, also delayed his departure from Brecon. OTOH, a departure from Mancetter could simply indicate Buckingham was waiting for the Woodville party to pass through before making his own departure. Buckingham wouldn't have had to know exactly when the Woodville party would pass through, just be ready for when it did. It would also give Buckingham a chance to meet with AW  and possibly learn something? I remember reading that one of the Woodvilles, I can't recall whether it was Dorset or Rivers, bragged about how they (the Woodvilles) were in the driver's seat and could do anything they wanted. Perhaps AW elaborated on that idea? Possibly even saying something along the lines of If Richard gets in Our way... (please note the use of that capital O). I do believe that something to Richard's detriment was planned and Richard learned of it after his arrival at Northampton and meeting with Buckingham. While it may be sheer coincidence, it may not. In 15th century England a close, personal relationship with the King made a person one of the most important people in the realm and Hastings couldn't hope to reproduce the same relationship with Edward V that he'd held with Edward IV. With the death of Edward IV, Hastings went from being one of the most important men in the country to being someone who faced losing, not only that his status based on his friendship with Edward IV, but all the appointments Edward had given him. Lord Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Mint, Captain of Calais; almost certainly those positions would be awarded elsewhere. Then there were those properties in the Midlands. Were they given to Hastings as freeholds, or were they given to him as the King's tenant? If the latter, he stood a good chance of losing some very valuable properties, as well as his position as a major player in the local politics of the Midlands. Perhaps his deal with the Woodvilles was over those properties? And the Woodvilles would also need all the support on the Council they could get; at least until Edward V took over the actual governing of the country. Then there's Morton. Might he have played on Hastings' fears of losing his position/s? Originally, the idea may simply have been that, in return for guarantees about those Midland properties (and possibly some fairly important position at Court) Hastings would support the Woodvilles against Richard in the proceedings of the Council but, once the Pre-Contract became known, that agreement segued into a plot against Richard himself as the only means available to keep Edward V on the throne. I do wish we had more definitive evidence!
Nico continued: Buckingham may have seen himself in a 'Kingmaker' role after having 'rescued' Richard from the Woodville plot (possibly also giving information that led to the disclosure of the precontract) and felt Richard owed him a huge debt of gratitude which was not repaid when Buckingham was left out of his 'inner circle.' Anyone could feel slighted under the circumstances, but an impulsive and egotistical person could easily be turned especially if manipulated by someone like Morton. However, I'm not convinced Buckingham was ever really interesting in restoring Edward V. If Richard's rewards were unsatisfactory, it was equally predictable that Woodvilles would close ranks too. The problem with the Woodvilles in 1483, was that while Dorset may have taken his place, along with EW as EV's most senior advisor, Lionel, Edward and Richard Woodville were all still alive (until 1484, 1488 and 1491 respectively.) Richard of Shrewsbury would play major role later on. This is the Woodville clique that I envision as ultimately sidelining both Buckingham and HT. Lionel, as a Bishop could expect a particularly central role, and Edward, Richard and RofS would probably marry and have their own heirs, while the Woodville sisters and their husbands would be rewarded but kept at bay because they may have their own agendas. I also suspect that MB may have felt the same way, and the marriage of HT and EofY was something that would only go ahead if circumstances worked out in a way that it was in her and HT's best interests. Doug here: I hadn't realized so many Woodville males were still alive after August 1483! Much would depend, of course, on just who got which position. I can't see Buckingham as Treasurer or Lord Chancellor and there's simply no way the Woodvilles would allow him to be Lord Chamberlain. so perhaps that was the thrust of Morton's arguments? I do believe, however, that Buckingham's original intention was the return of Edward V, with the question being when he decided he himself would make a better monarch. It would be so nice to be able to actually pin down when and where those rumors about the boys' deaths first started!
Nic concluded: I think Buckingham would have been told the 'family secret' by his mother. If Eleanor told anyone, it would probably be her immediate family and possibly the Catesby family who were consulted for legal advice. While they may have felt powerless to protest, when the precontract was revealed, the Talbot family never objected to a story that would have been a slur on Eleanor's memory, which implied that they knew. Buckingham may not have known whether what he had been told was credible, but he may have passed what he knew onto Richard, who then investigated the matter - while supporting EV, assuming it wasn't true until provable. Then, Stillington came forward with the proof...As for AW, if he was worried about the precontract, it would have made sense to move even faster to make sure EV was crowned, then suppressed the information as you say. However, Clarence's suspicions about EW's paranoia in 1470s are also interesting, and if it was the precontract that caused her insecurity, then the other Woodvilles probably did know. Perhaps AW was overconfident and too focused on pushing out Richard to worry about the precontract. Doug here: Maybe it's an inability on my part to comprehend the medieval mode of thinking, but wouldn't any slur be on Edward, and not Eleanor? Any attempt by the Talbots to make known the true status of Edward's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, while Edward was alive anyway, would mean imprisonment at best and most likely the block. Because wouldn't the Talbots be charging Edward, Edward the King, with not only abandoning his actual wife, but also living in sin with Elizabeth Woodville for all those years, and, even more importantly, deliberately planning to pass his bastard off as the legitimate heir? I'd keep my mouth shut too! What do you think of the idea that it may have Buckingham's statement, as well as eventually those by the Talbots and even Catesby, by confirming what Stillington alleged at the Council meeting, may have led to more desperate idea of killing Richard? If I remember correctly, even after Stillington met the Council, plans were still going forward for Edward V's coronation. IOW, no final decision had yet been made concerning Stillington's claim. Perhaps the Council was waiting for those confirmations? And the plot kill Richard was to forestall the Council from deciding against Edward's claim to the throne and in favor Richard's? The Woodvilles actions, prior to the events at Stony Stratford anyway, lead to believe they likely didn't know about the PreContract. Or else, as you say, were over-confident. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-04 22:25:49
justcarol67
Hilary wrote:

"FWIW Hastings' brothers, Richard and Ralph fought for Richard at Bosworth, as did his nephew Sir John Ferrers, who died there."
Carol responds:

It's worth a lot! It shows that key supporters of Hastings remained supporters of Richard. They must have thought (or known) he had good reason for executing their brother/uncle. (I don't share your conviction of Hastings's innocence. Richard would not have executed him without good reason, and just the word of, say, Buckingham, would not have been sufficient for someone as steeped in the law and legalities as Richard was.)

The rebellion at Hammes may have resulted from the execution of Hastings, but I suspect there were other reasons as well, such as the doubtful loyalties of the Blounts. I'd be interested in other people's ideas on the subject, especially Marie's.

But if Hastings's own relatives didn't rebel against Richard, the discontent must not have been widespread.

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-04 22:28:54
Hilary Jones
Hi David, I have Anthony being made Lord of IOW in about 1467? But what you say is interesting. H
On Thursday, 4 January 2018, 16:12:26 GMT, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary

Edward Woodville was made Lord of the Isle of Wight by Henry after Bosworth. When he took 500 archers to Brittany in 1488 they were all from the island. It appears to have been against Henry's wishes. There was only one survivor.
David

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 at 10:24, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []<> wrote:

Indeed. Have I been daft here wasn't AW also at one point Lord of the Wight - which would explain the connection between the Woodvilles and the Southampton rebels? And of course he was Lord of Caernarvon. I wonder how long the Woodvilles had been playing a double game - and more importantly with whom? H

On Wednesday, 3 January 2018, 14:04:10 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Ah, the Stradlings again! In a position to guard the Glamorgan coast and we know that AW had written to Dymock asking for letters to prove he had the right to raise troups in Wales.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-04 22:37:27
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"I remember reading that one of the Woodvilles, I can't recall whether it was Dorset or Rivers, bragged about how they (the Woodvilles) were in the driver's seat and could do anything they wanted."

Carol responds:

It was Dorset, quoted by the Croyland Continuator as saying, "'we are so important, that even without the king's uncle we can make and enforce these decisions." That was, of course, before the events at Stony Stratford sent Dorset into sanctuary (strong evidence that he and his family were up to something).

Carol

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

2018-01-04 22:49:13
Hilary Jones
Thanks Carol but on Hastings we will have to agree to disagree. Yes Richard was 'steeped in the Law' but these were times when things were becoming somewhat frantic. What do you need to know about the Blounts who were Lancastrian to the core? BTW could the fact that Richard knew the Law as it operated then only too well have been the reason for his unpopularity with the lawyers? They were making a fortune.
That and the establishment of the College of Arms are the only things I can come up with which can in any way have made his reign unpopular. Forget the 'princes' look at other controversial kings:
Edward II - favouritism and perhaps homosexualityRichard II - favouritism and elitismHenry VI - incompetence due to ill healthCharles I - taxation and religionJames II - religion
Richard - well nothing really apart from accepting a crown which had been legally offered by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal.
Which is why rebellions against him make no sense whatsoever, unless those involved stood to make personal gains. Cheers H On Thursday, 4 January 2018, 22:25:58 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:


Hilary wrote:

"FWIW Hastings' brothers, Richard and Ralph fought for Richard at Bosworth, as did his nephew Sir John Ferrers, who died there."
Carol responds:

It's worth a lot! It shows that key supporters of Hastings remained supporters of Richard. They must have thought (or known) he had good reason for executing their brother/uncle. (I don't share your conviction of Hastings's innocence. Richard would not have executed him without good reason, and just the word of, say, Buckingham, would not have been sufficient for someone as steeped in the law and legalities as Richard was.)

The rebellion at Hammes may have resulted from the execution of Hastings, but I suspect there were other reasons as well, such as the doubtful loyalties of the Blounts. I'd be interested in other people's ideas on the subject, especially Marie's.

But if Hastings's own relatives didn't rebel against Richard, the discontent must not have been widespread.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-05 16:05:06
Nicholas Brown
Doug: I can't recall whether it was Dorset or Rivers, bragged about how they (the Woodvilles) were in the driver's seat and could do anything they wanted. Perhaps AW elaborated on that idea? Possibly even saying something along the lines of If Richard gets in Our way... (please note the use of that capital O). I do believe that something to Richard's detriment was planned and Richard learned of it after his arrival at Northampton and meeting with Buckingham.
I agree with you. Richard found out something from Buckingham at Northampton, and I think it could well have been plans for an ambush. If not that, he probably discovered that the Woodvilles were planning to hold onto power at any cost, and try to obstruct Richard from carrying out his duties as Protector as Dorset's boast about having so much power clearly indicates. I think it was that, not the precontract. I don't know if Mancini was reporting Dorset's exact words or just the essence of what he said, but it was this comment that made me think that the Woodvilles were so overconfident that they needn't worry about the precontract, but AW was a different (and I think more intelligent) person, so if he was aware of it, he would have been in more of a panic to get to London, and would push for a coronation earlier than May 4. I also wish we did know more about Buckingham's route though, where he was coming from and when he was last likely to have been in contact with AW. Croyland says that Hastings wrote to Buckingham as well as Richard to inform him that E4 had died, so if that is correct and he would normally have been at Brecon, then he most likely came from there.

Doug: Perhaps his deal with the Woodvilles was over those properties? And the Woodvilles would also need all the support on the Council they could get; at least until Edward V took over the actual governing of the country. Then there's Morton. Might he have played on Hastings' fears of losing his position/s?
Hastings did potentially have a lot to lose, and that could have been an important factor that pushed him into colluding with the Woodvilles, even more so than the strength of his feelings about E5. I don't know what to make of Morton, as I'm not sure what his role in the Hasting's incident was. However, I could picture him figuring out someone's achilles heel and exploiting it. If he felt that manipulating the council in E5's favour was to his ultimate benefit, I have no doubt he would have done that.

Doug: I do believe, however, that Buckingham's original intention was the return of Edward V, with the question being when he decided he himself would make a better monarch. It would be so nice to be able to actually pin down when and where those rumors about the boys' deaths first started!
That is such a important question, and depends on a lot of factors, especially Buckingham's reason for turning against Richard, as well as the motivations of other people involved. Personally, I think the catalyst was Buckingham's disappointment at being excluded from a powerful position, and Morton capitalized on his bitterness. I'm still not convinced that he had a serious interest in restoring E5 once Richard was King. While he would have liked a better position in the King's circle, I'm not convinced he would have thought the Woodvilles had anything to offer. Something was revealed at Northampton, and he appears to have been central to it, whatever it was. That would surely have burned his bridges with them, so I can't see them seriously working together after that point, either in a conspiracy or in government. Therefore, imho, he went straight from supporting Richard, to furthering his own agenda. Because I think that Morton and MB would have preferred him to a Dorset dominated Woodville council, my suspicion is that Morton got to work on him while he was in his custody, MB carried on with her EofY/HT plans, but once Buckingham turned, both privately supported him. If Buckingham promised Henry's return plus a genuinely powerful position, I think MB would supported him without hesitation, especially since the Woodvilles were unlikely to offer more than an ornamental title outside the King's inner circle. As for the rumours, it is possible all three may have bee responsible for spreading them.

Doug: Maybe it's an inability on my part to comprehend the medieval mode of thinking, but wouldn't any slur be on Edward, and not Eleanor? Any attempt by the Talbots to make known the true status of Edward's marriage with Elizabeth Woodville, while Edward was alive anyway, would mean imprisonment at best and most likely the block...What do you think of the idea that it may have Buckingham's statement, as well as eventually those by the Talbots and even Catesby, by confirming what Stillington alleged at the Council meeting, may have led to more desperate idea of killing Richard? If I remember correctly, even after Stillington met the Council, plans were still going forward for Edward V's coronation. IOW, no final decision had yet been made concerning Stillington's claim. Perhaps the Council was waiting for those confirmations? And the plot kill Richard was to forestall the Council from deciding against Edward's claim to the throne and in favor Richard's?
The 'slur' that I referred to would be from after the precontract was revealed. I think that if they genuinely believed that the story was not true they would have said challenged Stillington. While Edward was at fault, I don't think they would want Eleanor's name dragged through the mud in a scandalous story if she had nothing to do with it. While he was alive, it would have been a closely guarded secret, too dangerous to travel outside the family except to people like Catesby if he gave legal advice. Since a secret is only as good as people you tell, the Talbots had to be very careful during Edward's reign, but after he was dead and the story out, they had nothing to lose.
I think it is possible that Buckingham, the Talbots and even Catesby may have given statements backing Stillington's claims could have triggered an attempt to kill Richard. Are you suggesting that the evidence was being presented and Hastings lashed out? If was what happpened, I would think there must have been after some collusion with other E5 supporters, such as the Woodvilles and maybe Morton that Richard would have to be assassinated, E5 crowned quickly and the information suppressed.
Nico



On Thursday, 4 January 2018, 22:38:06 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Doug wrote:

"I remember reading that one of the Woodvilles, I can't recall whether it was Dorset or Rivers, bragged about how they (the Woodvilles) were in the driver's seat and could do anything they wanted."

Carol responds:

It was Dorset, quoted by the Croyland Continuator as saying, "'we are so important, that even without the king's uncle we can make and enforce these decisions." That was, of course, before the events at Stony Stratford sent Dorset into sanctuary (strong evidence that he and his family were up to something).

Carol

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

2018-01-05 17:39:22
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: ":I would agree that the Woodvilles don't seem to have known anything about the Pre Contract. As you say they would have acted with greater haste. I think an anointed king does have more significance. Like you, I'm still puzzled about the journey and the meetings, after all it wasn't as though they had mobile phones and could catch up with where they had all got to. And there is that sort of harmonious period which is implied by the piece of paper which contains Richard's and the young Edward's names. It does seem as though someone alerted Richard to the plot during the meeting and things took a different turn. Doug here: To elaborate on that anointed king a bit; wouldn't the fact that Edward had been anointed mean that there d been some sort of coronation ceremony, however hurried? And doesn't the usual coronation ceremony also include the swearing of an oath to the new monarch? While I realize that by the 15th century, oaths weren't quite as sacrosanct as in previous times, they were still taken fairly seriously. Not to mention that, as an anointed and crowned king, Edward, and his mother's relatives, would be in position to remake the composition of the Council however they wished  as long as the reshaping occurred before Richard could take up his duties as Protector. It's also possible, however, that the Woodvilles simply may have believed that in any confrontation with Richard over who controlled the young king, they would have the support of a majority of the Council. And the mere fact of their having possession of the newly-crowned king would also likely help the Woodvilles in any dispute with Richard. For one thing, the Woodvilles, if came down to getting the backing of some waverers, could likely outbid Richard for their support. What if Rivers believed Richard couldn't assume the Protectorate until confirmed as Protector by the Council? Perhaps that might explain both his delay in departing Ludlow and unhurried journey to London? And if Richard understood the Protectorate to have commenced with the death of his brother, might that explain why he apparently also made no attempt to hurry to London? We don't know exactly when or where Richard received that letter from Hastings, do we? For that matter, and if I'm not mistaken(!), we don't have an exact date for Richard learning of his brother's death; only that, upon receiving the news, Richard instructed a chaplain to say requiem masses. Nor do we have a date for Richard's departure from York. All of which leads me think that Richard's meeting up with Rivers & Co., not to mention Buckingham, was sheer chance. If a major point in the Woodvilles' plans was to get Edward crowned before Richard arrived in London, the necessity in getting to London as rapidly as possible, St. George's Day notwithstanding, was paramount. If, on the other hand, Rivers believed the Woodvilles had sufficient support on the Council to delay Richard's confirmation as Protector, at least until until a day or so after Edward had been crowned, then the leisurely pace might be explained. And if Richard received Hastings' letter while either en route to Northampton or on his arrival there, the contents of the letter, outlining what the Woodvilles intended, may have been the cause for the arrests of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. Boy, talk about speculating! Hilary concluded: As for who knew about the Pre Contract, I do think there are things like 'old family secrets' which don't come out for years until someone has died, or until a crisis point makes them come out. I would still put money on Anne Beauchamp as Eleanor's aunt and someone who actually attended her mother's funeral and met her. It's the place where that sort of thing is discussed. Who else? I don't know, but MB (and Cis) were in the sort of Cranford afternoon tea circle. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't muttered there. It's very much a woman's thing. Doug here: I can envision a limited number of people either knowing for certain about the Pre-Contract or having heard of it from a well-placed, reliable source. Anne Beauchamp would certainly be an excellent possibility as one. Did Eleanor have any closer surviving relatives? Nico mentioned in another post that Catesby, as the family lawyer, might also have been aware of what had happened. I can't imagine such news remaining secret for long if too many were in on it. At the same time, once the secret was officially out, and knowledge of it no longer a deadly threat, if very many people had known, why isn't there greater confirmation of it? Or, perhaps, there were numerous, post-revelation confirmations in those missing Council records? If, however, there were such confirmations, they'd almost certainly have had to have been by notable and trustworthy people. People exactly such as Anne Beauchamp and, to a lesser degree, Catesby. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-06 13:55:30
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: If Edward really had diabetes (and it does sound highly likely) then George's supposed conjoring the death of the King must have touched a very raw nerve. And he was the rightful heir, however much Edward buried his head in the sand! Doug here: Might some of Edward's actions towards George have been due to knowing that George was his legal, if unacknowledged, heir? Edward simply didn't want to have to daily face the person he, Edward, the King, was trying to disinherit? I'm sure there must be a psychological term for it, but I don't know what it is. Hilary continued: For the rest I reckon it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes George had married Isabel but Edward had forbidden a Burgundian marriage. Edward had married who he wanted. Yes George had betrayed Edward but so had Warwick who had been let down by Edward and had supported the House of York through good times and bad. Doug here: While Edward's treatment of George may have been partly based on what I surmised above, George really had betrayed Edward, as had Warwick. Warwick died in battle, so Edward didn't have to worry about the possibility of having to deal with a living Warwick after regaining the throne. However, he did have to deal with a brother who'd not only allied himself with Warwick, Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI, but with people who, had they regained power would, at best, have put Edward in perpetual confinement or, likely if Margaret had her way, placed his head on the block. If that wouldn't give Edward a reason for distrusting George I don't know what would. Wasn't that proposed Burgundian marriage after Isabel's death? Which would also have been after George's betrayal of Edward in 1470/71. Perhaps Edward simply didn't trust George to be sufficiently pro-Edward? George had, after all, once very clearly demonstrated that he'd put his own interests above Edward's and, if one accepted the general view that Edward's interests were the same as England's, the country Edward ruled? It looks to me as if what we have here are the differing faults of two people feeding back onto each other's perception and treatment of the other. Yes, Edward was the King and, within legal limits, could do what he wanted. There was no legal reason for Edward to not marry Elizabeth Woodville; presuming, of course, he wasn't already married. There were, however, various political and social reasons for Edward not doing so. Reasons many might see as just as important as the legal one. Perhaps Edward's refusal to abide by those other-than-legal norms, by placing him in a defensive position in regards to his marriage, also affected how he treated anyone not an out-and-out supporter of his actions? And we know George's opinion of Edward's union with Elizabeth Woodville. George, though, and however much he may have resented it, was both Edward's subject and brother, and as such owed certain legal and familial duties to Edward. And it was his refusal to act, according to law and a sense of familial obligation as he should, that helped keep the brothers at odds. I hope that makes sense! Hilary concluded: And it was almost as though Edward had deliberately set up George to fail viz undermining and belittling him in Warwickshire. I know you disagree, but of the two I find George by far the most human - possibly because of his very real devotion to Isabel. Doug here: Well, if Edward, for whatever reason/s, didn't trust George, to expect him to place George in a position where trust in the person's loyalty would have been the determining factor, wouldn't make sense. And if Edward didn't trust George, then it would also make sense for Edward to also prevent George from building up a powerbase. Hence, Edward's actions in regards to giving Hastings properties in the Midlands and possibly even urging the Greys to action might be understandable(?)  even while not particularly reflecting well on Edward. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-06 14:04:51
Doug Stamate
Carol wrote:
"It was Dorset, quoted by the Croyland Continuator as saying, "'we are so
important, that even without the king's uncle we can make and enforce these
decisions." That was, of course, before the events at Stony Stratford sent
Dorset into sanctuary (strong evidence that he and his family were up to
something)."


Thank you! It didn't sound as if it was something Rivers would have said,
but I couldn't remember of find where I'd read it.
Interesting that the source is Croyland, which is usually fairly
anti-Richard. Of course, I suppose that could also be read as implying how
little power Richard had.
Fooled 'em, didn't he?
Doug


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

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

2018-01-07 10:23:32
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug yes I do understand and actually agree with most of it.
George was forbidden to go to Burgundy twice. Once when Margaret first went there, that is before Isabel and secondly, after her death. Perhaps the other thing that influences me in this is that Margaret was devoted to George - she dedicated a book on chess to him. I'd be interested in a psychological assessment of George. He seemed to get very attached to the women in his life - Margaret and Isabel, almost reliant on them. We don't know so much about his relationship with his mother, but we know she quite liked the marriage - Warwick was her favorite nephew, Isabel her goddaughter. She went to see them at Sandwich before they left to marry in France.
BTW I'd also be interested in an updated one on Richard now we know about his scoliosis. Although it probably didn't interfere with him that much on a daily basis, the knowledge that he was 'flawed' and the impact that times of extreme stress might have had on him does I think justify a revised assessment. And perhaps the exile to Utrecht at such an early age had longstanding effects on both Richard and George? H

On Saturday, 6 January 2018, 13:55:32 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: If Edward really had diabetes (and it does sound highly likely) then George's supposed conjoring the death of the King must have touched a very raw nerve.. And he was the rightful heir, however much Edward buried his head in the sand! Doug here: Might some of Edward's actions towards George have been due to knowing that George was his legal, if unacknowledged, heir? Edward simply didn't want to have to daily face the person he, Edward, the King, was trying to disinherit? I'm sure there must be a psychological term for it, but I don't know what it is. Hilary continued: For the rest I reckon it was 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. Yes George had married Isabel but Edward had forbidden a Burgundian marriage. Edward had married who he wanted. Yes George had betrayed Edward but so had Warwick who had been let down by Edward and had supported the House of York through good times and bad. Doug here: While Edward's treatment of George may have been partly based on what I surmised above, George really had betrayed Edward, as had Warwick. Warwick died in battle, so Edward didn't have to worry about the possibility of having to deal with a living Warwick after regaining the throne. However, he did have to deal with a brother who'd not only allied himself with Warwick, Margaret of Anjou and Henry VI, but with people who, had they regained power would, at best, have put Edward in perpetual confinement or, likely if Margaret had her way, placed his head on the block. If that wouldn't give Edward a reason for distrusting George I don't know what would. Wasn't that proposed Burgundian marriage after Isabel's death? Which would also have been after George's betrayal of Edward in 1470/71. Perhaps Edward simply didn't trust George to be sufficiently pro-Edward? George had, after all, once very clearly demonstrated that he'd put his own interests above Edward's and, if one accepted the general view that Edward's interests were the same as England's, the country Edward ruled? It looks to me as if what we have here are the differing faults of two people feeding back onto each other's perception and treatment of the other. Yes, Edward was the King and, within legal limits, could do what he wanted. There was no legal reason for Edward to not marry Elizabeth Woodville; presuming, of course, he wasn't already married. There were, however, various political and social reasons for Edward not doing so. Reasons many might see as just as important as the legal one. Perhaps Edward's refusal to abide by those other-than-legal norms, by placing him in a defensive position in regards to his marriage, also affected how he treated anyone not an out-and-out supporter of his actions? And we know George's opinion of Edward's union with Elizabeth Woodville. George, though, and however much he may have resented it, was both Edward's subject and brother, and as such owed certain legal and familial duties to Edward. And it was his refusal to act, according to law and a sense of familial obligation as he should, that helped keep the brothers at odds. I hope that makes sense! Hilary concluded: And it was almost as though Edward had deliberately set up George to fail viz undermining and belittling him in Warwickshire. I know you disagree, but of the two I find George by far the most human - possibly because of his very real devotion to Isabel. Doug here: Well, if Edward, for whatever reason/s, didn't trust George, to expect him to place George in a position where trust in the person's loyalty would have been the determining factor, wouldn't make sense. And if Edward didn't trust George, then it would also make sense for Edward to also prevent George from building up a powerbase. Hence, Edward's actions in regards to giving Hastings properties in the Midlands and possibly even urging the Greys to action might be understandable(?)  even while not particularly reflecting well on Edward. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-07 10:33:00
Hilary Jones
Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it.
The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king.
Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'. H
PS if you watch The Crown there's a moment when Elizabeth gets very upset with the Government because they delay her coronation for over a year.
On Friday, 5 January 2018, 17:39:27 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: ":I would agree that the Woodvilles don't seem to have known anything about the Pre Contract. As you say they would have acted with greater haste. I think an anointed king does have more significance. Like you, I'm still puzzled about the journey and the meetings, after all it wasn't as though they had mobile phones and could catch up with where they had all got to. And there is that sort of harmonious period which is implied by the piece of paper which contains Richard's and the young Edward's names. It does seem as though someone alerted Richard to the plot during the meeting and things took a different turn. Doug here: To elaborate on that anointed king a bit; wouldn't the fact that Edward had been anointed mean that there d been some sort of coronation ceremony, however hurried? And doesn't the usual coronation ceremony also include the swearing of an oath to the new monarch? While I realize that by the 15th century, oaths weren't quite as sacrosanct as in previous times, they were still taken fairly seriously. Not to mention that, as an anointed and crowned king, Edward, and his mother's relatives, would be in position to remake the composition of the Council however they wished  as long as the reshaping occurred before Richard could take up his duties as Protector. It's also possible, however, that the Woodvilles simply may have believed that in any confrontation with Richard over who controlled the young king, they would have the support of a majority of the Council. And the mere fact of their having possession of the newly-crowned king would also likely help the Woodvilles in any dispute with Richard. For one thing, the Woodvilles, if came down to getting the backing of some waverers, could likely outbid Richard for their support. What if Rivers believed Richard couldn't assume the Protectorate until confirmed as Protector by the Council? Perhaps that might explain both his delay in departing Ludlow and unhurried journey to London? And if Richard understood the Protectorate to have commenced with the death of his brother, might that explain why he apparently also made no attempt to hurry to London? We don't know exactly when or where Richard received that letter from Hastings, do we? For that matter, and if I'm not mistaken(!), we don't have an exact date for Richard learning of his brother's death; only that, upon receiving the news, Richard instructed a chaplain to say requiem masses. Nor do we have a date for Richard's departure from York. All of which leads me think that Richard's meeting up with Rivers & Co., not to mention Buckingham, was sheer chance. If a major point in the Woodvilles' plans was to get Edward crowned before Richard arrived in London, the necessity in getting to London as rapidly as possible, St. George's Day notwithstanding, was paramount. If, on the other hand, Rivers believed the Woodvilles had sufficient support on the Council to delay Richard's confirmation as Protector, at least until until a day or so after Edward had been crowned, then the leisurely pace might be explained. And if Richard received Hastings' letter while either en route to Northampton or on his arrival there, the contents of the letter, outlining what the Woodvilles intended, may have been the cause for the arrests of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. Boy, talk about speculating! Hilary concluded: As for who knew about the Pre Contract, I do think there are things like 'old family secrets' which don't come out for years until someone has died, or until a crisis point makes them come out. I would still put money on Anne Beauchamp as Eleanor's aunt and someone who actually attended her mother's funeral and met her. It's the place where that sort of thing is discussed. Who else? I don't know, but MB (and Cis) were in the sort of Cranford afternoon tea circle. It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't muttered there. It's very much a woman's thing. Doug here: I can envision a limited number of people either knowing for certain about the Pre-Contract or having heard of it from a well-placed, reliable source. Anne Beauchamp would certainly be an excellent possibility as one. Did Eleanor have any closer surviving relatives? Nico mentioned in another post that Catesby, as the family lawyer, might also have been aware of what had happened. I can't imagine such news remaining secret for long if too many were in on it. At the same time, once the secret was officially out, and knowledge of it no longer a deadly threat, if very many people had known, why isn't there greater confirmation of it? Or, perhaps, there were numerous, post-revelation confirmations in those missing Council records? If, however, there were such confirmations, they'd almost certainly have had to have been by notable and trustworthy people. People exactly such as Anne Beauchamp and, to a lesser degree, Catesby. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-07 12:23:53
ricard1an
Just to say, I know that Richard has been described as flawed but surely if this is the case then George was also flawed in the same way as they both shared the flight to Burgundy when they were young. The horrific death of their father and Edmund must have scarred them as well as Edward. In the same way as soldiers nowadays have PTSD they must have been affected by what they saw and did in battles. So I would suggest that Edward would have had issues too as well as his problems with multiple wives and mistresses. Also why isn't HT described as flawed? He was taken from his mother at an early age, who herself was definitely flawed by the horrific experience she had with his birth at an early age. HT's exile must have scarred him though I doubt he suffered from PTSD as he never fought in a battle in his life. It just annoys me that HT is seen as the saviour when in reality he brought over a hundred years of horror to this country and is probably responsible for the Divine Right of Kings because of his insistence at being called Your Majesty instead of your Grace (see Audrey Williams "Mystery of the Princes"). Rant over but I think that compared with some people involved in the WOTR Richard was remarkably human and normal, certainly more so than the Tudors.
Mary

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

2018-01-07 16:10:11
Hilary Jones
I do agree Mary! By a psychological assessment I wasn't meaning to prove 'why they were bad' - rather to understand them more. For example, from the little I know of scoliosis, stress can make its symptoms worse because the individual already has less breathing capacity. So, if you caught someone in that moment of pain, say caused by the revelation of Hastings' treachery (whether it was true or not) then they might well react more rashly at that point - and regret it later. Richard had been under a tremendous amount of stress from the death of Anne onwards. H
On Sunday, 7 January 2018, 12:23:57 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just to say, I know that Richard has been described as flawed but surely if this is the case then George was also flawed in the same way as they both shared the flight to Burgundy when they were young. The horrific death of their father and Edmund must have scarred them as well as Edward. In the same way as soldiers nowadays have PTSD they must have been affected by what they saw and did in battles. So I would suggest that Edward would have had issues too as well as his problems with multiple wives and mistresses. Also why isn't HT described as flawed? He was taken from his mother at an early age, who herself was definitely flawed by the horrific experience she had with his birth at an early age. HT's exile must have scarred him though I doubt he suffered from PTSD as he never fought in a battle in his life. It just annoys me that HT is seen as the saviour when in reality he brought over a hundred years of horror to this country and is probably responsible for the Divine Right of Kings because of his insistence at being called Your Majesty instead of your Grace (see Audrey Williams "Mystery of the Princes"). Rant over but I think that compared with some people involved in the WOTR Richard was remarkably human and normal, certainly more so than the Tudors.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-07 16:43:16
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote:
I honestly don't think it would be Richard who wanted lands back, after all he got Warwick and Kenilworth castles which were the chief prize in the region. Why would he seek to alienate Hastings who like himself had been a good servant to his brother - and a good soldier? On the other hand Richard wouldn't have much problem upsetting the Greys, who in his mind were responsible for Edward's irresponsible marriage.
Doug here:
I didn't mean that Richard would automatically demand Hastings return any properties he held at the King's pleasure, or whatever the term would be, but that Morton may very well have played on any such fears Hastings may have had. With Edward's death, and even presuming Edward V remained on the throne, Hastings position changed greatly with Edward IV's death. Whether it was the Woodvilles or the Protector who ruled, Hastings was certain to lose his position as Lord Chamberlain to the king. Unless Hastings was the exception to the rule, he almost certainly extracted fees for setting up appointments with the king. So there's the first financial blow. Then, especiallyif they were as remunerative as they sound, he'd also likely lose those posts as Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer. Blows two and three. Nor was it likely he'd retain his position as Captain of Calais; the post was just too sensitive not to be held by someone completely trusted. With the arrangements that had been put in place for paying the garrison, it would be unlikely that the Captaincy didn't also bring in something. Which tells me that, after Edward's death, Hastings would have known that, for a while anyway, from that point on his income would be from what ever properties he held; many of which, possibly even most, may have been gifts from Edward and, as I mentioned above, were held at the king's pleasure and subject to being taken back.
From what we know, it appears that, as Richard would later do as king with Buckingham, as Protector he excluded Hastings from membership in that much sought-after inner circle. We also know that Richard seems to have felt that, at the very least, Hastings could have done more to divert Edward from indulging himself so thoroughly in wine, women and song. That Hastings also participated in those indulgences with Edward likely wouldn't have made Hastings any more acceptable to Richard, whether as Protector or King.
Enter the villain: John Morton, Bishop of Ely. We know both Morton and Hastings were sitting with that part of the Council concerned with arranging the coronation. We also know that, whether as an originator or as a later addition, Hastings joined the plot to kill Richard. Why? And especially, when?
When I first joined this forum, my thought was that Hastings just didn't believe in the Pre-Contract. Edward IV had been his friend as much if not more than being his king. Thus Hastings' support for the plot was solely due to the affection he'd held for his dead friend and his determination to ensure his friend's son wasn't illegally disinherited.
Now, what if we add to any doubts Hastings may have had about the validity of the Pre-Contract, to his worries about just what was going to happen to him? It's a perfectly natural response. He'd lost not only his best friend, but the protector that friend, as king, had been. He'd lost those positions that had not only made him, as Lord Chamberlain, the second most powerful position in the realm (the King might make the decisions, but if you controlled who provided the input for those decisions...) and provided probably a very tidy annual income. Which left those properties as Hastings' remaining bulwark against becoming just another fairly well-off county magnate.
It's almost a certainty that Morton managed to either convert Buckingham to supporting an attempt to return Edward V to the throne or make a grab for it for himself. Why would it be too implausible to consider that Morton may have done something similar with regards to Hastings? Particularly if Hastings may not have been all that convinced about the Pre-Contract?
I think I may have something here, but...

Hilary continued:
FWIW Hastings' brothers, Richard and Ralph fought for Richard at Bosworth, as did his nephew Sir John Ferrers, who died there.

Doug here:
I can only think of two possible reasons for Hastings' brothers and nephew to continue to support Richard: Either they were solely worried about being on the winning side, or else they felt Lord Hastings' execution had been, however unfortunately, deserved.

Hilary continued:
Any time you want a bit of amusement take a look in the Leicestershire archives, the feud is very entertaining - fights in the street, forest ambushes, raiding of boat-sheds at Henley on Thames. Something which a monarch probably wouldn't be too bothered about but which must have been extremely annoying to the locals. Like the regular Saturday night pub brawl.

Doug here:
My regular must have been a neutral zone!

Hilary concluded:
I suppose the other thing which convinces me that Hastings was essentially a 'good egg' is that he is everywhere in Leicestershire - schools, roads. The Greys, not really.

Doug here:
Are they named Lord Hastings or some such? Because there was that battle down south...
Doug
Who devoutly hopes that emoticon comes through!

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



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

2018-01-07 18:16:48
ricard1an
Agree Hilary. I don't think we can begin to imagine what he must have gone through from 1483 -1485 apart from having scoliosis, which would have made his problems a lot worse.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-07 18:27:56
ricard1an
Doug in "The Deceivers" I think Geoff Richardson makes the same point about Morton getting to Hastings. It is a while since I read it but I think Geoff had MB being the main plotter and that as her nephew Buckingham was involved too. I must admit that I always thought that MB was the instigator of the plot but I must say that I am coming round to the Woodvilles maybe being in charge and MB just being a part of it.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-07 18:48:56
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I've found out a bit more today. If you read Marie's post you'll see she talks about Maud Wayte, the daughter of William (or Edward Wayte) and Margaret Popham. She rightly says that Maud married Sir John Chalers (Scales) - Maud had been married before to William Vyell, Constable of Tintagel Castle. And all can be confirmed via IPMs. Maud and John had three daughters, one of whom was Anne, who married as her second husband Gyles Wellesbourne. I hadn't heard of him but he was a retainer of William Stonor (of Hampton and 1483 rebel fame) and, on Richard's behalf, he escorted Buckingham to Salisbury for his execution. Meanwhile his brother Christopher had located Buckingham's wife and son for Richard. Seems to be right - Richard rewarded them. Now these folk were operating deep in old Lancaster/Woodville territory. Were they spies, like the Brechers, or does this indicate that the Woodvilles wanted Buckingham out of the w ay fast? Doug here: To me it would make sense to, if at all possible, scatter a few supporters in areas where it was known that locals didn't particularly favor you. Sort of breaking the bubble the locals may have been in concerning those so-and-so Yorkists by providing personal contacts? And, yes, if worst came to worst, spying. As for the Woodvilles wanting Buckingham out of the way, it does seem to me that once the rebellion had failed, they might very well feel the less chance Buckingham had to talk with Richard the better. Other than that, I can't say. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-07 20:38:22
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I agree with you. Richard found out something from Buckingham at Northampton, and I think it could well have been plans for an ambush. If not that, he probably discovered that the Woodvilles were planning to hold onto power at any cost, and try to obstruct Richard from carrying out his duties as Protector as Dorset's boast about having so much power clearly indicates. I think it was that, not the precontract. I don't know if Mancini was reporting Dorset's exact words or just the essence of what he said, but it was this comment that made me think that the Woodvilles were so overconfident that they needn't worry about the precontract, but AW was a different (and I think more intelligent) person, so if he was aware of it, he would have been in more of a panic to get to London, and would push for a coronation earlier than May 4. I also wish we did know more about Buckingham's route though, where he was coming from and when he was last likely to have been in contact with AW. Croyland says that Hastings wrote to Buckingham as well as Richard to inform him that E4 had died, so if that is correct and he would normally have been at Brecon, then he most likely came from there. Doug here: Part of the trouble is that there are quite a few possibilities: 1) Richard received Hastings' letter at Northampton and his meeting Buckingham there was by chance, 2) Richard had already received Hastings' letter and meeting up with Buckingham was by chance , 3) Both Richard and Buckingham had received letters from Hastings and the meeting at Northampton was planned (although coordination might be a problem), 4) Both had received their respective letters and the meeting was by chance (towards which I lean, currently anyway), 5) When Buckingham met Richard at Northampton, regardless of whether the meeting was planned or not, he passed on something he'd learned about possible Woodvilles plans while en route (that ambush/the rushed coronation), or 6) When Buckingham met Richard, the contents of his letter from Hastings confirmed the contents of Richard's letter from Hastings, which led Richard to arrest of Rivers, Grey and Vaughan. I'm not certain what the charges might have been, but there'd almost certainly have been something. If nothing else, as Protector, wouldn't it have been Richard who oversaw the coronation preparations? By-passing him would be, at least, an act of lese majestie, wouldn't it? And, unless Richard knew about the rushed coronation, would he, could he, prevent it on only a day or two's notice? Nico continued: Hastings did potentially have a lot to lose, and that could have been an important factor that pushed him into colluding with the Woodvilles, even more so than the strength of his feelings about E5. I don't know what to make of Morton, as I'm not sure what his role in the Hasting's incident was. However, I could picture him figuring out someone's achilles heel and exploiting it. If he felt that manipulating the council in E5's favour was to his ultimate benefit, I have no doubt he would have done that. Doug here: Considering that Morton seems to have worked his wiles on Buckingham's ego, I don't see why he couldn't also have done the same in regards to any possible fears Hastings may have had. Hastings faced potentially losing everything except those properties he held in freehold. Lord Chamberlain to the King, Master of the Mint, Lord Chamberlain of the Exchequer and Captain of Calais  all gone. The only things he still held that kept him from just being just another local big-shot were those Midland properties he'd been given by Edward. And as long as Edward was going to be King, Hastings still possessed some value to Richard  as a counterweight to the almost-certain opposition of the Woodvilles (including those Greys in the Midlands). However, once Stillington informed the Council about the Pre-Contract, Hastings' value the Woodvilles as a counter-weight to Richard disappears. OTOH, Hastings may now be of value to the Woodvilles, or at least those opposing (for whatever reason/s) accepting the Pre-Contract. We don't know when Hastings became involved in the plot to kill Richard, but sometime shortly after Stillington spoke to the Council would seem a likely period. If those properties were held, say, at the King's pleasure, then keeping those could have been Morton's sweetener in bringing Hastings in on the plot. Then again, perhaps Morton used something such as It really is amazing, isn't it, that a Pre-Contract, so greatly to the Lord Protector's benefit, should, all of the sudden, appear. Odd that. Or even some combination of the two. It is speculation on my part but, I think, more firmly based than those of many historians.
Nico continued: That [Buckingham's original intentions] is such a important question, and depends on a lot of factors, especially Buckingham's reason for turning against Richard, as well as the motivations of other people involved. Personally, I think the catalyst was Buckingham's disappointment at being excluded from a powerful position, and Morton capitalized on his bitterness. I'm still not convinced that he had a serious interest in restoring E5 once Richard was King. While he would have liked a better position in the King's circle, I'm not convinced he would have thought the Woodvilles had anything to offer. Something was revealed at Northampton, and he appears to have been central to it, whatever it was. That would surely have burned his bridges with them, so I can't see them seriously working together after that point, either in a conspiracy or in government. Therefore, imho, he went straight from supporting Richard, to furthering his own agenda. Because I think that Morton and MB would have preferred him to a Dorset dominated Woodville council, my suspicion is that Morton got to work on him while he was in his custody, MB carried on with her EofY/HT plans, but once Buckingham turned, both privately supported him. If Buckingham promised Henry's return plus a genuinely powerful position, I think MB would supported him without hesitation, especially since the Woodvilles were unlikely to offer more than an ornamental title outside the King's inner circle. As for the rumours, it is possible all three may have bee responsible for spreading them. Doug here: What do you think of the idea that Morton, while aiming to gain Buckingham's support for a rebellion to restore Edward, overdid playing on Buckingham's ego so that Buckingham came to believe that he could get the throne for himself? Of course, if a rebellion is begun in favor of someone, how, presuming that person is still alive, do you his supporters to switch their allegiance to you; without the rebellion collapsing anyway? Which, interestingly enough, is exactly what occurred to Buckingham's Rebellion. My personal view is that, mad as it sounds, Buckingham somehow got the idea he could divert the rebellion from supporting Edward to supporting himself. However, to successfully divert the rebellion to his own aims would require two near-impossibilities  the complete and devastating destruction of Richard and his forces and the removal of Edward (and his brother) as possible contenders. Perhaps Buckingham though he could square that circle  and Morton knew it was impossible?
FWIW, and again it's only my opinion, but I tend to think that, at least until after the failure of Buckingham's rebellion, Margaret Beaufort only aim was getting Henry back into England, safe and sound and, more importantly, with no conditions attached. Now, after the rebellion failed, it looks more to me as if Margaret went along with Henry's plans, rather than being the instigator. And, interestingly, she may not have done much of anything until after the death of Richard's heir. Nico continued: The 'slur' that I referred to would be from after the precontract was revealed. I think that if they genuinely believed that the story was not true they would have said challenged Stillington. While Edward was at fault, I don't think they would want Eleanor's name dragged through the mud in a scandalous story if she had nothing to do with it. While he was alive, it would have been a closely guarded secret, too dangerous to travel outside the family except to people like Catesby if he gave legal advice.. Since a secret is only as good as people you tell, the Talbots had to be very careful during Edward's reign, but after he was dead and the story out, they had nothing to lose. Doug here: Ah, I see now. The slur was that Edward, with a perfectly good marriage already in place with Eleanor, bypassed acknowledging her and not only married Elizabeth Woodville, but also acknowledged her as his queen. IOW, what was wrong with Eleanor that she shouldn't have been good enough, while Elizabeth Woodville was? Nico concluded: I think it is possible that Buckingham, the Talbots and even Catesby may have given statements backing Stillington's claims could have triggered an attempt to kill Richard. Are you suggesting that the evidence was being presented and Hastings lashed out? If was what happpened, I would think there must have been after some collusion with other E5 supporters, such as the Woodvilles and maybe Morton that Richard would have to be assassinated, E5 crowned quickly and the information suppressed. Doug here: Personally, I believe that Hastings' actions were the result of his knowing that Stillington's allegations, plus any supporting statements, had enough support on the Council to be accepted as being true. I think that the attempt on Richard's life in June 1483 was to prevent his being available as a legitimate alternative to his nephew. IOW, remove Richard and the Council could claim that Stilligton's allegations had no basis in fact. Whether the Council would actually do that or not, I can't say. After all, Richard had an indisputably legitimate heir, even if there were doubts about his brother's. However, presuming Richard had died and the Council did decide to support Edward as being his father's legitimate heir, we also have to remember that anyone making any remarks/claims about Edwards legitimacy would have been committing treason and could face death for saying such remarks. Even though they were true... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-07 21:08:43
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Hilary, It's certainly nice to know we're, roughly anyway, in agreement. The more I contemplate Edward and George, the more it looks to me like two people at cross-purposes  perhaps because they're too self-centered and lack the ability, or desire, to look at something from another's point of view. And, while the general view tends towards expecting family members to get along, I think we're all realists enough to realize that doesn't always happen. Thank you for that bit of information about George's first non-trip to Burgundy. FWIW, in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#Marriage in the sixth paragraph under Marriage, it says Margaret left England 23 June, 1468 and that Despite Louis XI having ordered ships to seize her..., she arrived safely. However, if Edward had any idea that Louis intended to to seize the vessels carrying his sister and her entourage, the failure to allow George to go along looks different  George was Edward's heir. While it might have entailed a risk, both to his sister and his relations with France and Burgundy, to have the French nab Margaret, the risk to England if Louis got hold of George was something else again. Perhaps George got along so well with women because he never looked on them as a threat? As a younger son in a noble family, trying to define one's position in the pecking order of his male relations might very well be difficult. Which is as far as this non-psychologist is willing to go. Except for the squabbling over their wives' inheritance, do we have any indications of how George and Richard got along otherwise? Wasn't Richard included in the party that met with George and talked him into switching from Warwick to Edward? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug yes I do understand and actually agree with most of it. George was forbidden to go to Burgundy twice.. Once when Margaret first went there, that is before Isabel and secondly, after her death. Perhaps the other thing that influences me in this is that Margaret was devoted to George - she dedicated a book on chess to him. I'd be interested in a psychological assessment of George. He seemed to get very attached to the women in his life - Margaret and Isabel, almost reliant on them. We don't know so much about his relationship with his mother, but we know she quite liked the marriage - Warwick was her favorite nephew, Isabel her goddaughter. She went to see them at Sandwich before they left to marry in France. BTW I'd also be interested in an updated one on Richard now we know about his scoliosis. Although it probably didn't interfere with him that much on a daily basis, the knowledge that he was 'flawed' and the impact that times of extreme stress might have had on him does I think justify a revised assessment. And perhaps the exile to Utrecht at such an early age had longstanding effects on both Richard and George?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-07 22:24:18
ricard1an
Doug we know from Thomas Penn's book about HT, "The Winter King", that John, Earl of Lincoln's family tree did not consider E5 or his brother as heirs to the throne. What if Buckingham thought the same thing. After all he would be aware of Canon Law and of course if he knew something through his family about the pre-contract he would probably definitely think that E5 and his brother were not eligible to take the throne. So maybe Morton persuaded him that Richard would not be good for the nobility as he was already making laws to give rights to ordinary citizens. He might have reminded Buckingham that he had a claim to the throne and that it might be better for the nobility if he were King and not Richard. Aunt Margaret would approve as it would mean that her son could come home. Just speculating but it is probably as plausible as the theories that the trads put about.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-08 09:55:10
Hilary Jones
I've found out a bit more about Giles Wellesbourne or Wellysborn. The Wellesbourne family were MPs for High Wycombe, 'across the road' from the Stonors who were by Henley on Thames. Thanks to a lady who's written a tome on medieval wards, it seem's William Stonor made quite a career out of taking on wards and Giles Wellesbourne the eldest of at least three Wellesbourne brothers was one such ward - Stonor bought him some shoes.
Now Stonor, as we know, was deep in old Lancaster territory - De Vere, Lovell (Francis's father), Greene, Latimer, Hampden and Woodville. For Edward or Richard to 'access' Giles and his brother must have taken quite some doing. Perhaps he went to uni? Or was Giles working for Stonor, who had rebelled on behalf of the Woodvilles and had orders from them to quickly get Buckingham out of the way? Richard rewarded the brothers but attainted Stonor so I don't think Stonor changed his coat.
Which brings me to our old friend Stillington. If you look at his Yorkshire background, his family, their friends, their wider family, everything points to him being part of what was to become the Neville/Richard set. Yes, he'd worked for Henry VI, but so had most people of his ability. And, unlike Morton and quite a few others, he didn't go into exile with MOA.
Could he possibly have been the biggest Yorkist plant of all? Even in 1464 the Bath and Wells diocese was bang in the middle of traditional Beaufort/Lancastrian support and it also contained several wider family of the Talbots - so knowledge of Edward's 'secret' could be monitored. Move on to 1472 and Clarence is also there and needs keeping an eye on. Then of course there is St Martin's, where quite a bit of London gossip would be rife. And the reward would of course have been the very lucrative marriage of his daughter Juliana into the 'Bytton inheritance'.
Just a thought. H

On Sunday, 7 January 2018, 18:49:12 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I've found out a bit more today. If you read Marie's post you'll see she talks about Maud Wayte, the daughter of William (or Edward Wayte) and Margaret Popham. She rightly says that Maud married Sir John Chalers (Scales) - Maud had been married before to William Vyell, Constable of Tintagel Castle. And all can be confirmed via IPMs. Maud and John had three daughters, one of whom was Anne, who married as her second husband Gyles Wellesbourne. I hadn't heard of him but he was a retainer of William Stonor (of Hampton and 1483 rebel fame) and, on Richard's behalf, he escorted Buckingham to Salisbury for his execution. Meanwhile his brother Christopher had located Buckingham's wife and son for Richard. Seems to be right - Richard rewarded them. Now these folk were operating deep in old Lancaster/Woodville territory. Were they spies, like the Brechers, or does this indicate that the Woodvilles wanted Buckingham out of the w ay fast? Doug here: To me it would make sense to, if at all possible, scatter a few supporters in areas where it was known that locals didn't particularly favor you. Sort of breaking the bubble the locals may have been in concerning those so-and-so Yorkists by providing personal contacts? And, yes, if worst came to worst, spying. As for the Woodvilles wanting Buckingham out of the way, it does seem to me that once the rebellion had failed, they might very well feel the less chance Buckingham had to talk with Richard the better. Other than that, I can't say. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-08 10:04:56
Hilary Jones
I do think you have something there Mary. You see, from the bit of work we've done on people like the Hamptons and the Stonors, there was an awful lot of money being made out of the Law - not just inheritances, but wardships as well. People rebel when something threatens their pockets or lifestyle and the Woodvilles were able to harness that. Perhaps Richard had more reforms up his sleeve which he never had time to put into practice? H
PS I had a mad moment and wrote 'Anne' instead of 'Edward' in my post on scoliosis. However, the same would apply to Anne's death in the period leading up to Bosworth.
On Sunday, 7 January 2018, 22:24:35 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug we know from Thomas Penn's book about HT, "The Winter King", that John, Earl of Lincoln's family tree did not consider E5 or his brother as heirs to the throne. What if Buckingham thought the same thing. After all he would be aware of Canon Law and of course if he knew something through his family about the pre-contract he would probably definitely think that E5 and his brother were not eligible to take the throne. So maybe Morton persuaded him that Richard would not be good for the nobility as he was already making laws to give rights to ordinary citizens. He might have reminded Buckingham that he had a claim to the throne and that it might be better for the nobility if he were King and not Richard. Aunt Margaret would approve as it would mean that her son could come home. Just speculating but it is probably as plausible as the theories that the trads put about.


Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-08 10:15:38
Hilary Jones
Thanks Doug I didn't know about the Louis seizure thing - what you say would certainly make sense.
Again it's interesting how very like the Henry VIII scenario this is. As second son he grew up in a household of women and doted on his mother and sisters. But he of course didn't have to play second fiddle forever.
I think Richard was included in the party to persuade George - in fact isn't he credited with doing the persuasion? Is this in the 'Arrival'? Apart from their eloquence in arguing over the Warwick inheritance - which is to be expected, I can't think of any squabbles - you'd have thought rumour would have rejoiced in them. And they did both ride over together to see Margaret in France and both wanted to go to her aid later and were forbidden by Edward. So I never get the feel for any great enmity. I think a lot of that comes from fiction. H
On Sunday, 7 January 2018, 21:09:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Hilary, It's certainly nice to know we're, roughly anyway, in agreement. The more I contemplate Edward and George, the more it looks to me like two people at cross-purposes  perhaps because they're too self-centered and lack the ability, or desire, to look at something from another's point of view. And, while the general view tends towards expecting family members to get along, I think we're all realists enough to realize that doesn't always happen. Thank you for that bit of information about George's first non-trip to Burgundy. FWIW, in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_York#Marriage in the sixth paragraph under Marriage, it says Margaret left England 23 June, 1468 and that Despite Louis XI having ordered ships to seize her..., she arrived safely. However, if Edward had any idea that Louis intended to to seize the vessels carrying his sister and her entourage, the failure to allow George to go along looks different  George was Edward's heir. While it might have entailed a risk, both to his sister and his relations with France and Burgundy, to have the French nab Margaret, the risk to England if Louis got hold of George was something else again. Perhaps George got along so well with women because he never looked on them as a threat? As a younger son in a noble family, trying to define one's position in the pecking order of his male relations might very well be difficult. Which is as far as this non-psychologist is willing to go. Except for the squabbling over their wives' inheritance, do we have any indications of how George and Richard got along otherwise? Wasn't Richard included in the party that met with George and talked him into switching from Warwick to Edward? Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug yes I do understand and actually agree with most of it. George was forbidden to go to Burgundy twice.. Once when Margaret first went there, that is before Isabel and secondly, after her death. Perhaps the other thing that influences me in this is that Margaret was devoted to George - she dedicated a book on chess to him. I'd be interested in a psychological assessment of George. He seemed to get very attached to the women in his life - Margaret and Isabel, almost reliant on them. We don't know so much about his relationship with his mother, but we know she quite liked the marriage - Warwick was her favorite nephew, Isabel her goddaughter. She went to see them at Sandwich before they left to marry in France. BTW I'd also be interested in an updated one on Richard now we know about his scoliosis. Although it probably didn't interfere with him that much on a daily basis, the knowledge that he was 'flawed' and the impact that times of extreme stress might have had on him does I think justify a revised assessment. And perhaps the exile to Utrecht at such an early age had longstanding effects on both Richard and George?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-08 11:14:08
ricard1an
A very vague recollection of something going the rounds years ago. Something about Stillington being sent by Edward to spy on HT and something about a female spy too. I think someone wrote a novel based on it maybe Valerie Anand? However, I may not have remembered correctly.
Mary


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-08 11:24:31
Hilary Jones
Interesting! I do recall Edward sent a female spy to talk with Clarence in France and try to bring him back. And then there's Alianore Audley :) :) H
On Monday, 8 January 2018, 11:14:16 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

A very vague recollection of something going the rounds years ago. Something about Stillington being sent by Edward to spy on HT and something about a female spy too. I think someone wrote a novel based on it maybe Valerie Anand? However, I may not have remembered correctly.


Mary


Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-08 11:43:16
ricard1an
Yes, Alianore came to mind too.It was years ago so I may not have remembered correctly and mixed up the female spying on Clarence.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-08 16:32:18
Doug Stamate
Hilary, In regards to who might have known about the Pre-Contract, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they'd have met two criteria: there wouldn't have been too many, perhaps only four or five at most, and they'd also have been of sufficient probity(?) so that their statements could be considered trustworthy. Say, one or two Talbots, Anne Beauchamp and Catesby Sr., if not also his son. As none of them, as far as we know, participated in the marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor, their statements would have had to been legally hearsay, wouldn't they? So the degree to which the information in their statements would been taken seriously would have depended on from whom they'd gotten that information, wouldn't it? If we limit those knowing about the marriage to the above few, the best person to have done the informing would likely have been Eleanor herself. At least to her relatives and possible Anne Beauchamp, with one of Eleanor's relatives then contacting the Catesbys for advice. I'm still up in the air about George ever knowing about the Pre-Contract. It's possible, however, that among those detrimental statements about the King that George was accused of saying, he also mentioned Edward and Eleanor. I seem to recall that were rather general, but I could easily be mistaken. If, however, Edward's marriage with Eleanor was among George's detrimental statements, then it would also mean that there'd be even more people at least aware of the charge of bigamy against Edward, if only to ensure that particular statement of George's wasn't included. On the one hand, having more people, even if only one or two, who knew about the claim, and that making that claim was part of the charges against George, could certainly lend more credence to it  once it was safe to speak. Any failure to immediately speak out when Edward IV died could be laid to the same reason nothing was said publicly before Edward died  it was, until Richard arrived anyway, just too dangerous. What do you think of the idea that, if George had known about the Pre-Contract, perhaps he'd only learned about it shortly before his wife died? Could George knowing he was legally Edward's heir, followed almost immediately by his wife's death, have been what set him off? Especially if he'd learned about the Pre-Contract from Isabel? His reasoning being, I'd imagine, that Isabel knew and now she was dead. He knew and now his life, and his son's, were in jeopardy. It could certainly help explain his high-handed actions against those he thought had something to do with Isabel's death, as well as his attempt to get his son, now legally the spare, out of England. I hope that make sense! As for the anointing; while the act itself doesn't necessarily seem to have protected a monarch from being dethroned, it does often seem to have slowed the course of events if their removal was being contemplated. It seems to me that it was the coronation itself that the Woodvilles were after. A proclaimed king was one thing; a crowned, and anointed, king quite another. Any attempt by the former to, say, remake the Council, might run into enough opposition to derail the attempt. OTOH, once crowned, it would only be natural for the new king to make appointments; removing some people and replacing them with others. But to remake the Council so that it represented the Woodvilles' interests, required that remaking to be done before the Protector arrived and, basically, took over the governing of the realm from the newly-crowned king, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it. The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king. Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil.. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-08 17:24:25
Doug Stamate
Mary, To be frank, I have a hard time trying to understand Buckingham's thought processes. He does seem to have possessed an ego not representative of his capabilities. Right now I'm sticking with the idea that Buckingham's original intentions were the same as Morton's  re-instate Edward. The only hope for returning Edward to the throne would have been an alliance between Edward's supporters, aka the Woodvilles, as well as as many of Edward IV's supporters discontented with Richard becoming king that could be gotten to. Then add to those any remaining Lancastrians and there'd be a chance of Edward being crowned in Westminster. Possibly a very good chance. However, it looks to me as if Richard, by not including Buckingham in his inner circle of advisors, left Buckingham open to Morton's well-attested abilities of persuasion. If sufficient numbers could be mustered to support him, Edward's return wasn't impossible and I rather wonder if Morton didn't view Buckingham as the figurehead to help drawn in those supporters. If so, Morton wouldn't have sold Buckingham on the idea that Buckingham would become king, rather that, because Buckingham's support had been so integral to Edward's return that the Woodvilles would be forced to give Buckingham entry into that much sought-after inner circle. Once there, whether as Protector or some other position, Buckingham would be where he felt he belonged  at the center of affairs. Any rumors about Edward IV's children being illegitimate would be placed where historians ever since have placed them  at Richard's feet as an attempt to justify his taking the throne. And, if need be, there'd be the power of life-and-death to squelch those rumors! FWIW, I think that if Buckingham did imagine substituting himself for Edward, it was only his own idea and it would have come about from Morton spending the better part of a month telling Buckingham how important he was. And, more importantly, just fitted Buckingham was to rule. Morton, I think, meant rule as Protector, but I wonder if that's what Henry Stafford, not only Duke of Buckingham, but of acknowledged legitimate descent may heard? When Morton parted from Buckingham, we presume it was to raise the alarm and turn out as many men as possible to either unite with Buckingham's forces or else force Richard to divide his. Yet there's no evidence Morton did any such thing. He seems to have scampered off, possibly stopping long enough to speak with Margaret Beaufort before heading for Ely and then the Continent. To me those actions have a couple of possible answers, The first was that Morton knew, from the beginning, that there was no chance of overthrowing Richard and his efforts were simply to stir up as much trouble for Richard as possible. But what would there be in that for Morton? Another possible explanation is that Morton, at the beginning anyway, thought there was a good chance of returning Edward to the throne, but soon realized that, not only was Buckingham incapable of leading such an effort, any involvement by Buckingham in the rebellion would likely doom its' chances. There's also a variation on that last, where Morton realized that Buckingham was contemplating diverting the rebellion from restoring Edward to himself, with Morton knowing that, regardless of Buckingham's estimation of his own abilities, there was just no way he could pull it off. Doug Who has to emphasize, and that most strongly, all the above is speculation  bolstered by about three actual facts! Mary wrote: Doug we know from Thomas Penn's book about HT, "The Winter King", that John, Earl of Lincoln's family tree did not consider E5 or his brother as heirs to the throne. What if Buckingham thought the same thing. After all he would be aware of Canon Law and of course if he knew something through his family about the pre-contract he would probably definitely think that E5 and his brother were not eligible to take the throne. So maybe Morton persuaded him that Richard would not be good for the nobility as he was already making laws to give rights to ordinary citizens. He might have reminded Buckingham that he had a claim to the throne and that it might be better for the nobility if he were King and not Richard. Aunt Margaret would approve as it would mean that her son could come home. Just speculating but it is probably as plausible as the theories that the trads put about.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-08 17:42:42
justcarol67



Hilary wrote:

"Margaret was devoted to George - she dedicated a book on chess to him."

Carol responds:

I'm not sure that means she was devoted to him. Maybe she just knew that he liked chess--or the opposite. Maybe she thought he should improve his playing to learn strategy. In any case, it's just one piece of evidence. Yes, she urged him to go back to Edward for his own good and the good of the realm, but so did Stillington and at least two of the other York women (his mother and his sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk).

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-08 22:33:15
Durose David
Mary,Re Penn and Lincoln's family tree, I am unable to find any reference in the Winter King to its indicating that he did not see Edward V as the true heir. It is specifically used to show that he did not see Henry as the true king (no surprise there).
If I have missed it, perhaps you could point it out.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-09 08:34:53
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.
Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.

I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later! H

On Monday, 8 January 2018, 16:38:44 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In regards to who might have known about the Pre-Contract, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they'd have met two criteria: there wouldn't have been too many, perhaps only four or five at most, and they'd also have been of sufficient probity(?) so that their statements could be considered trustworthy. Say, one or two Talbots, Anne Beauchamp and Catesby Sr., if not also his son. As none of them, as far as we know, participated in the marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor, their statements would have had to been legally hearsay, wouldn't they? So the degree to which the information in their statements would been taken seriously would have depended on from whom they'd gotten that information, wouldn't it? If we limit those knowing about the marriage to the above few, the best person to have done the informing would likely have been Eleanor herself. At least to her relatives and possible Anne Beauchamp, with one of Eleanor's relatives then contacting the Catesbys for advice. I'm still up in the air about George ever knowing about the Pre-Contract. It's possible, however, that among those detrimental statements about the King that George was accused of saying, he also mentioned Edward and Eleanor. I seem to recall that were rather general, but I could easily be mistaken. If, however, Edward's marriage with Eleanor was among George's detrimental statements, then it would also mean that there'd be even more people at least aware of the charge of bigamy against Edward, if only to ensure that particular statement of George's wasn't included. On the one hand, having more people, even if only one or two, who knew about the claim, and that making that claim was part of the charges against George, could certainly lend more credence to it  once it was safe to speak. Any failure to immediately speak out when Edward IV died could be laid to the same reason nothing was said publicly before Edward died  it was, until Richard arrived anyway, just too dangerous. What do you think of the idea that, if George had known about the Pre-Contract, perhaps he'd only learned about it shortly before his wife died? Could George knowing he was legally Edward's heir, followed almost immediately by his wife's death, have been what set him off? Especially if he'd learned about the Pre-Contract from Isabel? His reasoning being, I'd imagine, that Isabel knew and now she was dead. He knew and now his life, and his son's, were in jeopardy. It could certainly help explain his high-handed actions against those he thought had something to do with Isabel's death, as well as his attempt to get his son, now legally the spare, out of England. I hope that make sense! As for the anointing; while the act itself doesn't necessarily seem to have protected a monarch from being dethroned, it does often seem to have slowed the course of events if their removal was being contemplated. It seems to me that it was the coronation itself that the Woodvilles were after. A proclaimed king was one thing; a crowned, and anointed, king quite another. Any attempt by the former to, say, remake the Council, might run into enough opposition to derail the attempt. OTOH, once crowned, it would only be natural for the new king to make appointments; removing some people and replacing them with others. But to remake the Council so that it represented the Woodvilles' interests, required that remaking to be done before the Protector arrived and, basically, took over the governing of the realm from the newly-crowned king, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it. The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king. Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil.. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-09 13:29:37
Nicholas Brown
Doug:What do you think of the idea that Morton, while aiming to gain Buckingham's support for a rebellion to restore Edward, overdid playing on Buckingham's ego so that Buckingham came to believe that he could get the throne for himself?... . However, to successfully divert the rebellion to his own aims would require two near-impossibilities  the complete and devastating destruction of Richard and his forces and the removal of Edward (and his brother) as possible contenders.

If Buckingham's ego was big enough and it probably was, that could have been the case, but would really seriously considered it without feeling assured that he would have considerable backing? Displacing one anointed King (Richard) as well as another contender (Edward V). This is why I suspect that Morton, after the precontract was revealed may have preferred Buckingham to the Edward V. After all, Buckingham was an adult, and the two previous child kings, Henry III and Richard II turned out to be weak and faction dominated. Therefore, Morton may have justified turning his attention to Buckingham for those reasons, as Edward V's Woodville dominated reign could easily have gone in that direction. There was also the Henry VI/MoA/old Lancaster factor. While Morton made his peace with Edward after Tewkesbury and got some prominent positions, they were away from the centre of power and he was never on Edward V's council. What he, Bray and MB all had in common were close connections to Henry VI's reign, which they all had good reason to feel some nostalgia for, so they may have decided that Buckingham with his Beaufort descent and his legal claim to the throne through the Stafford line was the heir to old Lancaster, expecting, of course, to be handsomely rewarded for their efforts.
As for the Woodvilles, while I could see Morton and some of the older Lancastrian families gravitating towards Anthony Woodville if the rewards were good enough, but I'm not sure about the situation once he was dead. AW was an accomplished intellectual and would have commanded considerable respect, but not all Woodvilles were created equal. However, a boy king dominated by the Marquis of Dorset may have been another story altogether. FWIW, the 'we are so powerful' comment speaks volumes about the MofD - arrogant, greedy, impulsive, short-sighted... to name just a few negative characteristics. Actually, Dorset typifies the unpleasant Woodville stereotype more than any of them. Despite all the titles, land and privilege, (enabled by EW), he never actually accomplished anything of note, probably wasn't very bright and was central to the sleazier aspects of Edward IV's life. It is also interesting that EIV chose his younger brother, Richard Grey to be a co-guardian of E5, rather than him. Not much to recommend for someone who would without doubt push his way to being EV's chief advisor. As for the other Woodvilles, Lionel was also intellectually accomplished, but the other two seem less so. Edward tried to escape with the treasury, and seems a bit of a law unto himself. It is harder to say about Richard jr, but he doesn't seem to have done much either. While AW and Lionel may have worked as guardians of young EV, the others would have given anyone doubts. They may even have ended up fighting amongst each other.

Margaret Beaufort intrigues me most here. I agree with you that her main intention was getting HT back, and may well have had no plans for him to be King. However, there is something about her personality that likes to be at the centre of things, to be involved and be in control which is evident in the prominent role she took on as 'The King's Mother.' Also, Welles was involved in the Tower assault, and she was clearly using her contacts at an early stage. I think she would have liked a Lancaster monarchy under Buckingham, with her and HT in prominent roles. However, I also think that HT's push for the throne was his own idea, not something he was pushed into by her.
Ah, I see now. The slur was that Edward, with a perfectly good marriage already in place with Eleanor, bypassed acknowledging her and not only married Elizabeth Woodville, but also acknowledged her as his queen. IOW, what was wrong with Eleanor that she shouldn't have been good enough, while Elizabeth Woodville was?
It was probably a combination of luck and circumstanc, plus whatever it was that encouraged Eleanor to withdraw from the scene. Firstly, accounts of EW's wedding say that it was at Grafton Regis with Jacquetta, among others as a witness. While he may have intended the circumstances to be more clandestine, it would be hard to challenge Jacquetta and her prominent family by denying it. Also, the 'secret' marriage to EW became public knowledge when he felt forced to give a reason for turning down Warwick's French alliance.

Personally, I believe that Hastings' actions were the result of his knowing that Stillington's allegations, plus any supporting statements, had enough support on the Council to be accepted as being true. I think that the attempt on Richard's life in June 1483 was to prevent his being available as a legitimate alternative to his nephew. IOW, remove Richard and the Council could claim that Stilligton's allegations had no basis in fact.
You are probably right about this. If manipulating the council to reject and suppress the precontract was the only way of holding on to what he had, then he may have felt that removing Richard was the only way.
Nico






On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, 08:35:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.
Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.

I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later! H

On Monday, 8 January 2018, 16:38:44 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In regards to who might have known about the Pre-Contract, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they'd have met two criteria: there wouldn't have been too many, perhaps only four or five at most, and they'd also have been of sufficient probity(?) so that their statements could be considered trustworthy. Say, one or two Talbots, Anne Beauchamp and Catesby Sr., if not also his son. As none of them, as far as we know, participated in the marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor, their statements would have had to been legally hearsay, wouldn't they? So the degree to which the information in their statements would been taken seriously would have depended on from whom they'd gotten that information, wouldn't it? If we limit those knowing about the marriage to the above few, the best person to have done the informing would likely have been Eleanor herself. At least to her relatives and possible Anne Beauchamp, with one of Eleanor's relatives then contacting the Catesbys for advice. I'm still up in the air about George ever knowing about the Pre-Contract. It's possible, however, that among those detrimental statements about the King that George was accused of saying, he also mentioned Edward and Eleanor. I seem to recall that were rather general, but I could easily be mistaken. If, however, Edward's marriage with Eleanor was among George's detrimental statements, then it would also mean that there'd be even more people at least aware of the charge of bigamy against Edward, if only to ensure that particular statement of George's wasn't included. On the one hand, having more people, even if only one or two, who knew about the claim, and that making that claim was part of the charges against George, could certainly lend more credence to it  once it was safe to speak. Any failure to immediately speak out when Edward IV died could be laid to the same reason nothing was said publicly before Edward died  it was, until Richard arrived anyway, just too dangerous. What do you think of the idea that, if George had known about the Pre-Contract, perhaps he'd only learned about it shortly before his wife died? Could George knowing he was legally Edward's heir, followed almost immediately by his wife's death, have been what set him off? Especially if he'd learned about the Pre-Contract from Isabel? His reasoning being, I'd imagine, that Isabel knew and now she was dead. He knew and now his life, and his son's, were in jeopardy. It could certainly help explain his high-handed actions against those he thought had something to do with Isabel's death, as well as his attempt to get his son, now legally the spare, out of England. I hope that make sense! As for the anointing; while the act itself doesn't necessarily seem to have protected a monarch from being dethroned, it does often seem to have slowed the course of events if their removal was being contemplated. It seems to me that it was the coronation itself that the Woodvilles were after. A proclaimed king was one thing; a crowned, and anointed, king quite another. Any attempt by the former to, say, remake the Council, might run into enough opposition to derail the attempt. OTOH, once crowned, it would only be natural for the new king to make appointments; removing some people and replacing them with others. But to remake the Council so that it represented the Woodvilles' interests, required that remaking to be done before the Protector arrived and, basically, took over the governing of the realm from the newly-crowned king, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it. The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king. Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil.. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-09 14:48:22
Nicholas Brown

Hi,
Yahoo seems to be deleting posts, including Doug and Hilary's conversation about who knew about the precontract. I found it on my phone, but could yahoo have a look at what is going on?

Anyway, when it came to proving the precontract, the hearsay rule wouldn't have applied, as it wasn't used until a few centuries later, and even the (in England anyway) it was only for criminal cases. Therefore, if knowledge of the precontract came from people close to Eleanor, that testimony should have been acceptable. Also, while Stillington came forward with the evidence he may have been able to produce the actual priest involved to give first hand testimony, but if not, credible evidence as to how he came to learn of it, could be considered. Family members, such as her brother Humphrey and sister Elizabeth also would probably have been called to say what Eleanor told him (and perhaps her feelings about it) as would Catesby if he knew a anything about it. Cousins/aunts/uncles such as Buckingham (via his mother) and Anne Beauchamp may also have known and testified. It is unfortunate that there are no records of what the proof actually was, but knowledge probably was confined to that very small circle.
Anne Beauchamp is borderline. She was Eleanor's aunt, but she may have not been as close as others such as Buckingham's mother because of the Berkeley inheritance dispute, but there seems to have been some contact, so maybe she did know, and if so, was the most likely source of Clarence getting the information, and by extension ideas about his an Warwick's safety as the next legal heirs. What puzzles me if that if Isabel knew and told Clarence (and was murdered?), then Anne must have known too, but Richard doesn't appear to have been aware, and was supporting EV until the news came out. Maybe she withheld what she knew because she thought Richard might ask Edward about which would cause trouble for her mother.
As for the anointing, if the Woodvilles had managed to get the coronation done, it may have swayed enough council members to support EV, as they may have interpreted it as God's will. Even HT was uncomfortable about Lambert Simnel, believing that the coronation in Dublin gave him some sort of holy or priestly status.
Nico
On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, 13:29:29 GMT, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Doug:What do you think of the idea that Morton, while aiming to gain Buckingham's support for a rebellion to restore Edward, overdid playing on Buckingham's ego so that Buckingham came to believe that he could get the throne for himself?... . However, to successfully divert the rebellion to his own aims would require two near-impossibilities  the complete and devastating destruction of Richard and his forces and the removal of Edward (and his brother) as possible contenders.

If Buckingham's ego was big enough and it probably was, that could have been the case, but would really seriously considered it without feeling assured that he would have considerable backing? Displacing one anointed King (Richard) as well as another contender (Edward V). This is why I suspect that Morton, after the precontract was revealed may have preferred Buckingham to the Edward V. After all, Buckingham was an adult, and the two previous child kings, Henry III and Richard II turned out to be weak and faction dominated. Therefore, Morton may have justified turning his attention to Buckingham for those reasons, as Edward V's Woodville dominated reign could easily have gone in that direction. There was also the Henry VI/MoA/old Lancaster factor. While Morton made his peace with Edward after Tewkesbury and got some prominent positions, they were away from the centre of power and he was never on Edward V's council. What he, Bray and MB all had in common were close connections to Henry VI's reign, which they all had good reason to feel some nostalgia for, so they may have decided that Buckingham with his Beaufort descent and his legal claim to the throne through the Stafford line was the heir to old Lancaster, expecting, of course, to be handsomely rewarded for their efforts.
As for the Woodvilles, while I could see Morton and some of the older Lancastrian families gravitating towards Anthony Woodville if the rewards were good enough, but I'm not sure about the situation once he was dead. AW was an accomplished intellectual and would have commanded considerable respect, but not all Woodvilles were created equal. However, a boy king dominated by the Marquis of Dorset may have been another story altogether. FWIW, the 'we are so powerful' comment speaks volumes about the MofD - arrogant, greedy, impulsive, short-sighted... to name just a few negative characteristics. Actually, Dorset typifies the unpleasant Woodville stereotype more than any of them. Despite all the titles, land and privilege, (enabled by EW), he never actually accomplished anything of note, probably wasn't very bright and was central to the sleazier aspects of Edward IV's life. It is also interesting that EIV chose his younger brother, Richard Grey to be a co-guardian of E5, rather than him. Not much to recommend for someone who would without doubt push his way to being EV's chief advisor. As for the other Woodvilles, Lionel was also intellectually accomplished, but the other two seem less so. Edward tried to escape with the treasury, and seems a bit of a law unto himself. It is harder to say about Richard jr, but he doesn't seem to have done much either. While AW and Lionel may have worked as guardians of young EV, the others would have given anyone doubts. They may even have ended up fighting amongst each other.

Margaret Beaufort intrigues me most here. I agree with you that her main intention was getting HT back, and may well have had no plans for him to be King. However, there is something about her personality that likes to be at the centre of things, to be involved and be in control which is evident in the prominent role she took on as 'The King's Mother.' Also, Welles was involved in the Tower assault, and she was clearly using her contacts at an early stage. I think she would have liked a Lancaster monarchy under Buckingham, with her and HT in prominent roles. However, I also think that HT's push for the throne was his own idea, not something he was pushed into by her.
Ah, I see now. The slur was that Edward, with a perfectly good marriage already in place with Eleanor, bypassed acknowledging her and not only married Elizabeth Woodville, but also acknowledged her as his queen. IOW, what was wrong with Eleanor that she shouldn't have been good enough, while Elizabeth Woodville was?
It was probably a combination of luck and circumstanc, plus whatever it was that encouraged Eleanor to withdraw from the scene. Firstly, accounts of EW's wedding say that it was at Grafton Regis with Jacquetta, among others as a witness. While he may have intended the circumstances to be more clandestine, it would be hard to challenge Jacquetta and her prominent family by denying it. Also, the 'secret' marriage to EW became public knowledge when he felt forced to give a reason for turning down Warwick's French alliance.

Personally, I believe that Hastings' actions were the result of his knowing that Stillington's allegations, plus any supporting statements, had enough support on the Council to be accepted as being true. I think that the attempt on Richard's life in June 1483 was to prevent his being available as a legitimate alternative to his nephew. IOW, remove Richard and the Council could claim that Stilligton's allegations had no basis in fact.
You are probably right about this. If manipulating the council to reject and suppress the precontract was the only way of holding on to what he had, then he may have felt that removing Richard was the only way.
Nico






On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, 08:35:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.
Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.

I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later! H

On Monday, 8 January 2018, 16:38:44 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In regards to who might have known about the Pre-Contract, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they'd have met two criteria: there wouldn't have been too many, perhaps only four or five at most, and they'd also have been of sufficient probity(?) so that their statements could be considered trustworthy. Say, one or two Talbots, Anne Beauchamp and Catesby Sr., if not also his son. As none of them, as far as we know, participated in the marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor, their statements would have had to been legally hearsay, wouldn't they? So the degree to which the information in their statements would been taken seriously would have depended on from whom they'd gotten that information, wouldn't it? If we limit those knowing about the marriage to the above few, the best person to have done the informing would likely have been Eleanor herself. At least to her relatives and possible Anne Beauchamp, with one of Eleanor's relatives then contacting the Catesbys for advice. I'm still up in the air about George ever knowing about the Pre-Contract. It's possible, however, that among those detrimental statements about the King that George was accused of saying, he also mentioned Edward and Eleanor. I seem to recall that were rather general, but I could easily be mistaken. If, however, Edward's marriage with Eleanor was among George's detrimental statements, then it would also mean that there'd be even more people at least aware of the charge of bigamy against Edward, if only to ensure that particular statement of George's wasn't included. On the one hand, having more people, even if only one or two, who knew about the claim, and that making that claim was part of the charges against George, could certainly lend more credence to it  once it was safe to speak. Any failure to immediately speak out when Edward IV died could be laid to the same reason nothing was said publicly before Edward died  it was, until Richard arrived anyway, just too dangerous. What do you think of the idea that, if George had known about the Pre-Contract, perhaps he'd only learned about it shortly before his wife died? Could George knowing he was legally Edward's heir, followed almost immediately by his wife's death, have been what set him off? Especially if he'd learned about the Pre-Contract from Isabel? His reasoning being, I'd imagine, that Isabel knew and now she was dead. He knew and now his life, and his son's, were in jeopardy. It could certainly help explain his high-handed actions against those he thought had something to do with Isabel's death, as well as his attempt to get his son, now legally the spare, out of England. I hope that make sense! As for the anointing; while the act itself doesn't necessarily seem to have protected a monarch from being dethroned, it does often seem to have slowed the course of events if their removal was being contemplated. It seems to me that it was the coronation itself that the Woodvilles were after. A proclaimed king was one thing; a crowned, and anointed, king quite another. Any attempt by the former to, say, remake the Council, might run into enough opposition to derail the attempt. OTOH, once crowned, it would only be natural for the new king to make appointments; removing some people and replacing them with others. But to remake the Council so that it represented the Woodvilles' interests, required that remaking to be done before the Protector arrived and, basically, took over the governing of the realm from the newly-crowned king, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it. The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king. Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil.. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-09 15:08:07
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Doug in "The Deceivers" I think Geoff Richardson makes the same point about Morton getting to Hastings. It is a while since I read it but I think Geoff had MB being the main plotter and that as her nephew Buckingham was involved too. I must admit that I always thought that MB was the instigator of the plot but I must say that I am coming round to the Woodvilles maybe being in charge and MB just being a part of it. Doug here: I, too, originally believed Margaret Beaufort to be the spider in the center of the web, but as time has passed, if one views Margaret, not as that spider, but as her being monomaniacally determined to get Henry back, I think more is explained. Margaret hadn't seen Henry since, at the latest, sometime in 1471, when he was 14. Edward IV almost cut a deal 1476 with the Breton ruler's advisors to return Henry in 1476, but Francis, who'd apparently been thought near death, recovered and stopped it. The problem Margaret faced at that point was that Henry was now 19 and certainly considered to be, not only an adult, but capable of suffering an adult's penalties for treason  which is how Henry's remaining in Brittany could be viewed, and was by both Edward and later Richard. If the reports we do have are accurate, however, Margaret spent the remainder of Edward IV's reign still trying to put together some formula that would allow Henry back into England without facing any treason charges. The execution of the Duke of Clarence, the king's own brother, likely didn't get her hopes up! The question that always bothered me, though, was why Margaret so quickly adopted the idea of a marriage between Henry and Elizabeth of York as the means of Henry's return. However, if we place that proposal to before Stillington's original appearance before the Council, it might make a bit more sense. The Woodvilles were casting about for all the support they could muster to stop the Council from accepting, not Richard as Protector, that battle was already lost, but Richard's conception of what the position of Protector entailed  basically a substitute monarch, ruling as a king did with the advice of the Council. The Woodvilles, OTOH, were likely working for a Protectorate much more on the order of the Protectorship for Henry VI under Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, where the Protector was dependent on the Council; much more if what I've read is accurate. We also know Margaret's husband was on the Council. How much influence would Lord Stanley have?Would enough Council members follow Stanley if he decided in favor the Protector being subject to the Council, rather than what seems to have been Richard's view with the Council being subject to the Protector? That argument was apparently decided in favor of Richard's conception of a Protectorship, but was almost immediately followed by the Council being faced with Stillington's revelations about the Pre-Contract. What if the Council, having decided in favor of a strong Protector by only a small majority, now split almost as evenly over whether or not to accept the validity of the Pre-Contract? Once again, w ould Stanley have had enough influence to make the difference? If the Council was more or less evenly divided, could Stanley's opposition be the tipping point in getting the Council to reject the idea of a Pre-Contract between Edward and Eleanor Butler? IOW, Margaret may never have been involved in any plot to kill Richard, but was involved in political maneuverings designed to prevent him from becoming king that, and without her knowledge, later morphed into an attempt on Richard's life. In the parts of her Attainder that Carol provided, the charges against Margaret appear to be two basic ones; first, she maintained contact and sent money to Henry and, second, she encouraged Henry to support Buckingham's failed rebellion. If she'd been knowingly involved in a plot against Richard's life in June, why wasn't that charge also included? Did Richard consider his support so vital that he'd overlook Stanley's wife's involvement in a murder plot against the Protector? Interesting, no? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-09 15:57:43
Hilary Jones
Nico re your bit about Yahoo, I've found that if I've sometimes read a post on my mobile and tried to come back to it it's been deleted as though it never was. Have even had to search the main forum website.
Couple of small points to add to a very good discussion
Firstly, Anthony is to me the ultimate poser - the expert jouster who is just always too busy to get his hands dirty. Imagine Richard in summer 1471 having been wounded at Barnet, fought at Tewkesbury and passed judgement on the Lancastrian leaders, being then sent to pursue Fauconberg because AW, who was originally requested to do so by Edward, was preparing to go on a pilgrimage. Did he go? No. Where was AW in Scotland - at least Percy was there? I think this is just another Victorian rendering of the persecuted poet. Hard - but that's how he grabs me.
As well as the unlovely Dorset, and perhaps Buckingham, the one who could also have had a will to get rid of Hastings was Thomas Stanley. The Stanleys had steadily expanded their 'empire' for generations. It now rivaled that of the Staffords in the North West. The Hastings, Buckingham (Stafford) and to a lesser extent Grey empires were all impinging on Stanley ambitions. Anyone clever enough to take out both Hastings and Buckingham whilst getting them conveniently attainted was doing the Stanleys an immense good turn. H

On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, 13:43:41 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug:What do you think of the idea that Morton, while aiming to gain Buckingham's support for a rebellion to restore Edward, overdid playing on Buckingham's ego so that Buckingham came to believe that he could get the throne for himself?... . However, to successfully divert the rebellion to his own aims would require two near-impossibilities  the complete and devastating destruction of Richard and his forces and the removal of Edward (and his brother) as possible contenders.

If Buckingham's ego was big enough and it probably was, that could have been the case, but would really seriously considered it without feeling assured that he would have considerable backing? Displacing one anointed King (Richard) as well as another contender (Edward V). This is why I suspect that Morton, after the precontract was revealed may have preferred Buckingham to the Edward V. After all, Buckingham was an adult, and the two previous child kings, Henry III and Richard II turned out to be weak and faction dominated. Therefore, Morton may have justified turning his attention to Buckingham for those reasons, as Edward V's Woodville dominated reign could easily have gone in that direction. There was also the Henry VI/MoA/old Lancaster factor. While Morton made his peace with Edward after Tewkesbury and got some prominent positions, they were away from the centre of power and he was never on Edward V's council. What he, Bray and MB all had in common were close connections to Henry VI's reign, which they all had good reason to feel some nostalgia for, so they may have decided that Buckingham with his Beaufort descent and his legal claim to the throne through the Stafford line was the heir to old Lancaster, expecting, of course, to be handsomely rewarded for their efforts..
As for the Woodvilles, while I could see Morton and some of the older Lancastrian families gravitating towards Anthony Woodville if the rewards were good enough, but I'm not sure about the situation once he was dead. AW was an accomplished intellectual and would have commanded considerable respect, but not all Woodvilles were created equal. However, a boy king dominated by the Marquis of Dorset may have been another story altogether. FWIW, the 'we are so powerful' comment speaks volumes about the MofD - arrogant, greedy, impulsive, short-sighted... to name just a few negative characteristics. Actually, Dorset typifies the unpleasant Woodville stereotype more than any of them. Despite all the titles, land and privilege, (enabled by EW), he never actually accomplished anything of note, probably wasn't very bright and was central to the sleazier aspects of Edward IV's life. It is also interesting that EIV chose his younger brother, Richard Grey to be a co-guardian of E5, rather than him. Not much to recommend for someone who would without doubt push his way to being EV's chief advisor. As for the other Woodvilles, Lionel was also intellectually accomplished, but the other two seem less so. Edward tried to escape with the treasury, and seems a bit of a law unto himself. It is harder to say about Richard jr, but he doesn't seem to have done much either. While AW and Lionel may have worked as guardians of young EV, the others would have given anyone doubts. They may even have ended up fighting amongst each other.

Margaret Beaufort intrigues me most here. I agree with you that her main intention was getting HT back, and may well have had no plans for him to be King. However, there is something about her personality that likes to be at the centre of things, to be involved and be in control which is evident in the prominent role she took on as 'The King's Mother.' Also, Welles was involved in the Tower assault, and she was clearly using her contacts at an early stage. I think she would have liked a Lancaster monarchy under Buckingham, with her and HT in prominent roles. However, I also think that HT's push for the throne was his own idea, not something he was pushed into by her.
Ah, I see now. The slur was that Edward, with a perfectly good marriage already in place with Eleanor, bypassed acknowledging her and not only married Elizabeth Woodville, but also acknowledged her as his queen. IOW, what was wrong with Eleanor that she shouldn't have been good enough, while Elizabeth Woodville was?
It was probably a combination of luck and circumstanc, plus whatever it was that encouraged Eleanor to withdraw from the scene. Firstly, accounts of EW's wedding say that it was at Grafton Regis with Jacquetta, among others as a witness. While he may have intended the circumstances to be more clandestine, it would be hard to challenge Jacquetta and her prominent family by denying it. Also, the 'secret' marriage to EW became public knowledge when he felt forced to give a reason for turning down Warwick's French alliance.

Personally, I believe that Hastings' actions were the result of his knowing that Stillington's allegations, plus any supporting statements, had enough support on the Council to be accepted as being true. I think that the attempt on Richard's life in June 1483 was to prevent his being available as a legitimate alternative to his nephew. IOW, remove Richard and the Council could claim that Stilligton's allegations had no basis in fact.
You are probably right about this. If manipulating the council to reject and suppress the precontract was the only way of holding on to what he had, then he may have felt that removing Richard was the only way.
Nico






On Tuesday, 9 January 2018, 08:35:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.
Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.

I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later! H

On Monday, 8 January 2018, 16:38:44 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, In regards to who might have known about the Pre-Contract, the only thing I'm fairly certain of is that they'd have met two criteria: there wouldn't have been too many, perhaps only four or five at most, and they'd also have been of sufficient probity(?) so that their statements could be considered trustworthy. Say, one or two Talbots, Anne Beauchamp and Catesby Sr., if not also his son. As none of them, as far as we know, participated in the marriage ceremony between Edward and Eleanor, their statements would have had to been legally hearsay, wouldn't they? So the degree to which the information in their statements would been taken seriously would have depended on from whom they'd gotten that information, wouldn't it? If we limit those knowing about the marriage to the above few, the best person to have done the informing would likely have been Eleanor herself. At least to her relatives and possible Anne Beauchamp, with one of Eleanor's relatives then contacting the Catesbys for advice. I'm still up in the air about George ever knowing about the Pre-Contract. It's possible, however, that among those detrimental statements about the King that George was accused of saying, he also mentioned Edward and Eleanor. I seem to recall that were rather general, but I could easily be mistaken. If, however, Edward's marriage with Eleanor was among George's detrimental statements, then it would also mean that there'd be even more people at least aware of the charge of bigamy against Edward, if only to ensure that particular statement of George's wasn't included. On the one hand, having more people, even if only one or two, who knew about the claim, and that making that claim was part of the charges against George, could certainly lend more credence to it  once it was safe to speak. Any failure to immediately speak out when Edward IV died could be laid to the same reason nothing was said publicly before Edward died  it was, until Richard arrived anyway, just too dangerous. What do you think of the idea that, if George had known about the Pre-Contract, perhaps he'd only learned about it shortly before his wife died? Could George knowing he was legally Edward's heir, followed almost immediately by his wife's death, have been what set him off? Especially if he'd learned about the Pre-Contract from Isabel? His reasoning being, I'd imagine, that Isabel knew and now she was dead. He knew and now his life, and his son's, were in jeopardy. It could certainly help explain his high-handed actions against those he thought had something to do with Isabel's death, as well as his attempt to get his son, now legally the spare, out of England. I hope that make sense! As for the anointing; while the act itself doesn't necessarily seem to have protected a monarch from being dethroned, it does often seem to have slowed the course of events if their removal was being contemplated. It seems to me that it was the coronation itself that the Woodvilles were after. A proclaimed king was one thing; a crowned, and anointed, king quite another. Any attempt by the former to, say, remake the Council, might run into enough opposition to derail the attempt. OTOH, once crowned, it would only be natural for the new king to make appointments; removing some people and replacing them with others. But to remake the Council so that it represented the Woodvilles' interests, required that remaking to be done before the Protector arrived and, basically, took over the governing of the realm from the newly-crowned king, wouldn't it? Doug Hilary wrote: Catesby could also have known via his father who had married into the Talbot (and dare I say Stillington) set. Whilst I don't buy Eleanor meandering up to see Mrs Catesby like a Jane Austen heroine (sorry Hammond) I would have thought either as a lawyer or a relative, Catesby senior would have come across it - even if he couldn't prove it. The Catesbys were of course long-term lawyers to the Beauchamps and to George so I would agree it is likely that they would have been aware of rumours if not proof. Anne Beauchamp could of course bring gravity to this if she were able to confirm it and she would have a vested interest because it meant one of her grandsons would in due course become king. Re anointing, that takes place at the Coronation. There's always been a 'thing' that uncrowned kings, and indeed their consorts, were of a sort of lesser value than those who had been touched with the holy oil.. It's something often said about Edward VIII (and Edward V). The anointing and crowning are the moment when you become a being set aside by God. I would have thought the Woodviles would have wanted that crown on young Edward's head asap, if only to make him more 'untouchable'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-09 17:24:46
ricard1an
David I apologise it may not have been in the book, however, it was definitely in the television programme that Thomas Penn did about his book. I definitely remember him saying that the Lincoln Roll does not consider the Princes as heirs to the throne due to their illegitimacy. I have a vague recollection that he mentioned that he was writing another book and bringing this into it. Does anyone else remember this? Note to self when watching television programmes on the WOTR write notes in order to be able to access any evidence produced.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 16:59:08
justcarol67

Doug wrote:

Part of the trouble is that there are quite a few possibilities:1) Richard received Hastings' letter at Northampton and his meeting Buckingham there was by chance,2) Richard had already received Hastings' letter and meeting up with Buckingham was by chance ,3) Both Richard and Buckingham had received letters from Hastings and the meeting at Northampton was planned (although coordination might be a problem),4) Both had received their respective letters and the meeting was by chance (towards which I lean, currently anyway),"
Carol responds:

I don't think we even know that Hastings sent Richard a letter. Croyland says nothing about it, and Mancini purports to quote it as if he had seen it, which, of course, he could not have done (just as he purports to quote the conversation at Stony Stratford verbatim even though he could at best have heard a biased and translated paraphrase). These humanist "historians" take liberties to tell a good story and present a moral. We do ourselves, and history, a disservice if we take them at their word.

Now, of course, *someone* must have informed Richard that the Woodvilles were up to something and he needed to hurry and it makes sense that the someone would have been Hastings, but do we know that for sure? (The contents of the letter, of course, are pure speculation on Mancini's part.)

It might even have been Buckingham who informed him for all we know. That the Woodvilles were up to no good, attempting to run the government without the Lord High Constable and designated Protector (Richard), sending out ship's without Lord Admiral Richard's authorization, and taking control of the Tower and its treasures we know for sure. And we do have Croyland's remark that Hastings approved of Richard's handling of Stony Stratford "without so much blood as a cut finger" to quote from memory. But we need to take any letters quoted by Mancini with a grain of salt.

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 17:17:55
Doug Stamate
Hilary, A thought occurred to me when I read that As a second son..., so I checked and found that George wasn't the second son, it was Edmund. Which would have put George's status during childhood as that of a being a younger son. Of importance because of his family, but not necessarily otherwise. Until he was sent off to be a page in some noble's household, and while he'd likely still be held to certain, general standards required of any nobly-born male, it seems to me those standards mightn't necessarily have been the same as those applied to Edward and Edmund before they'd been sent off. Edward was the heir and Edmund the spare, so their treatment, the standards that they'd be held to, would likely have been stricter, wouldn't they? Edward and Edmund would be expected to lead in battle and participate in governing; if not the kingdom, then certainly their extensive holdings. For George, OTOH, while he would remain a member of the upper nobility, wouldn't automatically have been expected to assume a major role in either war or peace. Thus, his mother and sisters could dote on him as a child without any harm. Of course, since as far as we know, Richard may also have received the same sort of attention from his mother and sisters, this only goes to show that every person is, indeed, an individual! FWIW, I still rather wonder if many, if not all, of George's and Edward's problems with each other were simply due to George going from that status being just a younger son, to that of being, for a decade, Edward's heir? The responsibilities would certainly be different and, if George had been doted on as a child, an awful lot would depend on George realizing he hadn't been properly trained for the position he now held. Do we know if Edward made any special efforts to instruct George in his duties and responsibilities as his presumptive heir? Of course, Edward may have thought there was no need, what with him being 18/19 years old and healthy. History is full of kings who didn't get along, to say the least, with their heirs; so, perhaps it's yet another example of that? Doug Hilary wrote: Thanks Doug I didn't know about the Louis seizure thing - what you say would certainly make sense. Again it's interesting how very like the Henry VIII scenario this is. As second son he grew up in a household of women and doted on his mother and sisters. But he of course didn't have to play second fiddle forever. I think Richard was included in the party to persuade George - in fact isn't he credited with doing the persuasion? Is this in the 'Arrival'? Apart from their eloquence in arguing over the Warwick inheritance - which is to be expected, I can't think of any squabbles - you'd have thought rumour would have rejoiced in them. And they did both ride over together to see Margaret in France and both wanted to go to her aid later and were forbidden by Edward. So I never get the feel for any great enmity. I think a lot of that comes from fiction.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-10 17:18:06
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"Right now I'm sticking with the idea that Buckingham's original intentions were the same as Morton's  re-instate Edward."

Carol responds:

I can't think of anything more contrary to Buckingham's interests than reinstating EV considering how active he had been in spreading the information about Edward's illegitimacy, deposing him, and, in general, supporting Richard. So either he (for reasons incomprehensible to me) thought he would be better off under the claimless HT than he was under Richard or he wanted to be king himself, his own claim being flawless with regard to legitimacy though of course there were others who had a better claim with regard to descent (none interested in claiming the throne that we know of, aside from Richard who was already king).

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 17:47:07
justcarol67



Mary wrote:

"David I apologise it may not have been in the book, however, it was definitely in the television programme that Thomas Penn did about his book. I definitely remember him saying that the Lincoln Roll does not consider the Princes as heirs to the throne due to their illegitimacy. I have a vague recollection that he mentioned that he was writing another book and bringing this into it. Does anyone else remember this? Note to self when watching television programmes on the WOTR write notes in order to be able to access any evidence produced."

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I haven't read "Winter King" so I don't know Penn's views on the subject, but the roll reflects the de la Pole's own claim as heirs of Richard III and Edward IV's oldest surviving sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk. Elizabeth and her husband supported Richard's claim, taking (especially in her case) a conspicuous part in Richard's coronation, as did their oldest son, John Earl of Lincoln, who was a key supporter (and had charge of both the Council of the North and the young Earl of Warwick). He, of course, died at the Battle of Stoke supporting Warwick's claim (via "Lambert Simnel") against HT, presumably intending to reverse the now inconvenient attainder.

But the roll was not made until after the deaths of both Warwick and "Perkin Warbeck," who may or may not have been Richard, Duke of York, at which point Edmund de la Pole and his brothers could safely claim to be the only surviving Yorkist heirs. They could reveal through the family tree what they probably believed all along, that Richard was the true king (with the boys as illegitimate) and John of Lincoln was (according to the Roll) his chosen heir, which meant that his surviving brothers were next in line.

You can be sure that HT would have been incensed if he had discovered the roll in their possession. Or maybe he knew about it and that's why Richard de la Pole spent his adult life in the Tower?

Guess I should read "The Winter King" to see what it says about the de la Poles.

For what it's worth, the roll probably also reflects the views of Margaret of York and Maximillian, both of whom also supported Richard.

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 17:55:48
stephenmlark
The programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b021ng66) was first shown in May 2009 and the Roll definitely post-dates 1513, when Edmund de la Pole was executed. It also post-dates some, but not all, of the suggested future identities of the Princes.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: justcarol67@... []
Sent: 10 January 2018 17:47
To:
Subject: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

 



Mary wrote:
"David I apologise it may not have been in the book, however, it was definitely in the television programme that Thomas Penn did about his book. I definitely remember him saying that the Lincoln Roll does not consider the Princes as heirs to the throne due to their illegitimacy. I have a vague recollection that he mentioned that he was writing another book and bringing this into it. Does anyone else remember this? Note to self when watching television programmes on the WOTR write notes in order to be able to access any evidence produced."

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I haven't read "Winter King" so I don't know Penn's views on the subject, but the roll reflects the de la Pole's own claim as heirs of Richard III and Edward IV's oldest surviving sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk. Elizabeth and her husband supported R ichard's claim, taking (especially in her case) a conspicuous part in Richard's coronation, as did their oldest son, John Earl of Lincoln, who was a key supporter (and had charge of both the Council of the North and the young Earl of Warwick). He, of course, died at the Battle of Stoke supporting Warwick's claim (via "Lambert Simnel") against HT, presumably intending to reverse the now inconvenient attainder.

But the roll was not made until after the deaths of both Warwick and "Perkin Warbeck," who may or may not have been Richard, Duke of York, at which point Edmund de la Pole and his brothers could safely claim to be the only surviving Yorkist heirs. They could reveal through the family tree what they probably believed all along, that Richard was the true king (with the boys as illegitimate) and John of Lincoln was (according to the Roll) his chosen heir, which meant that his surviving brothers were next in line.

You can be sure that HT would have been incensed if he had discovered the roll in their possession. Or maybe he knew about it and that's why Richard de la Pole spent his adult life in the Tower?

Guess I should read "The Winter King" to see what it says about the de la Poles.

For what it's worth, the roll probably also reflects the views of Margaret of York and Maximillian, both of whom also supported Richard.

Carol




Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 17:59:47
justcarol67
Doug wrote:

"FWIW, I still rather wonder if many, if not all, of George's and Edward's problems with each other were simply due to George going from that status being just a younger son, to that of being, for a decade, Edward's heir?"

Carol responds:

I snipped your thoughtful observations on Richard and George for sake of space, but I agree with them. I would add that George went from being Edward's heir to being second and then third in line when Edward had sons, and he must have felt threatened by Edward's marriage (setting aside the problematic nature of that specific marriage) and by each successive pregnancy. His relief when the first three children were female would not completely still the anxiety that the next child might be male. Essentially, having been heir to the throne, he wanted to remain there by whatever means.

But also, he never seems to have undergone the sort of training or education for responsible leadership that Richard, three years younger, received from Warwick, nor does he seem to have had Richard's natural aptitude for work and responsibility.

I can only imagine the consequences if he had still been alive when Edward died and the precontract had been revealed, especially if Edward had appointed Richard, not George, as Protector. Feathers would have flown!

Carol

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-10 18:53:36
ricard1an
Interesting thought about Buckingham having informed Richard about the Woodville plot. That is a plausible reason for his being in Northampton to meet Richard. Hastings may well have written to Richard to tell him that Edward had died and that he should come to London as quickly as possible because the Woodvilles were trying to take over the Council. Buckingham probably had no idea that Hastings had written because presumably Hastings would have kept his letter a secret, especially as Buckingham was married to a Woodville. Buckingham could well have written to Richard too because he had discovered the plot to attack or kill Richard on his way to London and that is why he turned up in Northampton.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-11 09:57:23
Hilary Jones
It was also shown in the 'Histories Greatest Fibs' programme. What it does show is that HT has no claim whatsoever and that Richard did.
Carol, I would read the 'Winter King'. It is a very, very good book. But it starts with the death of EOY. H
On Wednesday, 10 January 2018, 17:47:15 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:




Mary wrote:

"David I apologise it may not have been in the book, however, it was definitely in the television programme that Thomas Penn did about his book. I definitely remember him saying that the Lincoln Roll does not consider the Princes as heirs to the throne due to their illegitimacy. I have a vague recollection that he mentioned that he was writing another book and bringing this into it. Does anyone else remember this? Note to self when watching television programmes on the WOTR write notes in order to be able to access any evidence produced."

Carol responds:

Hi, Mary. I haven't read "Winter King" so I don't know Penn's views on the subject, but the roll reflects the de la Pole's own claim as heirs of Richard III and Edward IV's oldest surviving sister Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk. Elizabeth and her husband supported Richard's claim, taking (especially in her case) a conspicuous part in Richard's coronation, as did their oldest son, John Earl of Lincoln, who was a key supporter (and had charge of both the Council of the North and the young Earl of Warwick). He, of course, died at the Battle of Stoke supporting Warwick's claim (via "Lambert Simnel") against HT, presumably intending to reverse the now inconvenient attainder.

But the roll was not made until after the deaths of both Warwick and "Perkin Warbeck," who may or may not have been Richard, Duke of York, at which point Edmund de la Pole and his brothers could safely claim to be the only surviving Yorkist heirs. They could reveal through the family tree what they probably believed all along, that Richard was the true king (with the boys as illegitimate) and John of Lincoln was (according to the Roll) his chosen heir, which meant that his surviving brothers were next in line.

You can be sure that HT would have been incensed if he had discovered the roll in their possession. Or maybe he knew about it and that's why Richard de la Pole spent his adult life in the Tower?

Guess I should read "The Winter King" to see what it says about the de la Poles.

For what it's worth, the roll probably also reflects the views of Margaret of York and Maximillian, both of whom also supported Richard.

Carol

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-11 10:15:20
Hilary Jones
It is a good idea. Such a revelation by Buckingham would have put him in high favour with Richard and at the centre of future things. I could also see Buckingham and Hastings being in the same camp (for a time). One tends to forget that Hastings was Anne's uncle, so I still think Hastings would be more aligned with Richard than the Woodvilles. H

On Wednesday, 10 January 2018, 18:53:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting thought about Buckingham having informed Richard about the Woodville plot. That is a plausible reason for his being in Northampton to meet Richard. Hastings may well have written to Richard to tell him that Edward had died and that he should come to London as quickly as possible because the Woodvilles were trying to take over the Council. Buckingham probably had no idea that Hastings had written because presumably Hastings would have kept his letter a secret, especially as Buckingham was married to a Woodville. Buckingham could well have written to Richard too because he had discovered the plot to attack or kill Richard on his way to London and that is why he turned up in Northampton.


Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-11 11:49:06
Nicholas Brown
Hilary: Firstly, Anthony is to me the ultimate poser - the expert jouster who is just always too busy to get his hands dirty. Imagine Richard in summer 1471 having been wounded at Barnet, fought at Tewkesbury and passed judgement on the Lancastrian leaders, being then sent to pursue Fauconberg because AW, who was originally requested to do so by Edward, was preparing to go on a pilgrimage. Did he go? No. Where was AW in Scotland - at least Percy was there? I think this is just another Victorian rendering of the persecuted poet. Hard - but that's how he grabs me.
As well as the unlovely Dorset, and perhaps Buckingham, the one who could also have had a will to get rid of Hastings was Thomas Stanley. The Stanleys had steadily expanded their 'empire' for generations. It now rivaled that of the Staffords in the North West. The Hastings, Buckingham (Stafford) and to a lesser extent Grey empires were all impinging on Stanley ambitions. Anyone clever enough to take out both Hastings and Buckingham whilst getting them conveniently attainted was doing the Stanleys an immense good turn.

The Fauconberg incident is a very revealing insight into Anthony Woodville. You would think that someone who had been elevated beyond all expectation by the House of York would do anything to assist them and would drop the pilgrimage plans without hesitation. But not him, and then he doesn't bother to go on the pilgrimage anyway. That would suggest considerable arrogance, selfishness, possibly even a bit of contempt Assisting with the Scottish campaign may have been a way of making up for his earlier neglect, but he didn't do that either. Most likely his excuse for that one was that he was too busy educating the future Edward V, something that raises another question: what kind of king would a person like that turn out? Someone like Henry VI (without the mental illness), intellectual and cultured; but without the leadership qualities for a 15th century king. Surely, a seasoned warrior like Warwick would have been a better choice.
Stanley is another interesting observation. Some sources say that Buckingham was also an intended target. Clearly it was Hastings who took the first steps to an overt act of treason, but who else was involved? Stanley certainly stood to benefit if Hastings, Buckingham and ultimately the Woodvilles were out of the picture. According to Grafton, Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him.'
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-infamous-cou
Nico

On Thursday, 11 January 2018, 10:15:40 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

It is a good idea. Such a revelation by Buckingham would have put him in high favour with Richard and at the centre of future things. I could also see Buckingham and Hastings being in the same camp (for a time). One tends to forget that Hastings was Anne's uncle, so I still think Hastings would be more aligned with Richard than the Woodvilles. H

On Wednesday, 10 January 2018, 18:53:45 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting thought about Buckingham having informed Richard about the Woodville plot. That is a plausible reason for his being in Northampton to meet Richard. Hastings may well have written to Richard to tell him that Edward had died and that he should come to London as quickly as possible because the Woodvilles were trying to take over the Council. Buckingham probably had no idea that Hastings had written because presumably Hastings would have kept his letter a secret, especially as Buckingham was married to a Woodville. Buckingham could well have written to Richard too because he had discovered the plot to attack or kill Richard on his way to London and that is why he turned up in Northampton.


Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-11 16:42:53
Doug Stamate
Carol, Thanks for setting me straight about Hastings' letter! Sorry to say, but I keep forgetting that what we know as facts from this period often aren't because of the style in which histories were written. Obviously I've been spoiled by footnotes and authors not reporting speeches for which there are no records. However, the point I was trying to get across were the logistics involved in simply arranging a meet-up, regardless of where or when. Since the meeting took place on 29 April, and Edward had only died on the 9th, it seems to me there'd have to have been quite a bit of galloping to and fro if any arrangements were made between Buckingham and Richard themselves. OTOH, someone in London might be in a position to find out when the Woodvilles hoped to have young Edward crowned, work back from there and send off messages alerting both Richard and Buckingham. I guess we could call that the received version? Something I've always found interesting about everyone meeting at Northampton is that no one has ever seemed to find it odd that three different parties, departing from three different bases all managed to arrive at exactly the same place almost within in minutes of each other! Every account I've read about the meeting at Northampton has the Woodville party arriving first, apparently planning to stop there for the night, and with Edward being sent ahead to Stony Stratford. Then Richard and Buckingham are introduced into the narratives. Because of Northampton being on the main road from York to London, Richard's arrival would be natural enough, if a bit unexpected. But Buckingham's? As I mentioned in another post, if Buckingham was in Brecon when he heard of Edward IV's death, and presuming his first thought was to get to London, why go so far out of his way? There were several faster routes available if he crossed the Severn at Gloucester and then headed for London. Instead, we find him arriving at Northampton seemingly immediately after the Woodville party stopped for the day and just in time to meet Richard. What if Buckingham's planned all along to meet up with the Woodville party? Now, no matter how I juggle the figures, I can't come up with anything sensible that has Buckingham departing Brecon, heading east to catch the connecting road leading north to the road that went from Ludlow to Northampton. Now, if I've correctly understood a post from Hilary, Buckingham had property in Mancetter, Staffordshire which would have been on or very near the Ludlow-Northampton road. Now, if we place Buckingham at Mancetter, rather than at Brecon, and have him waiting there for Rivers' party to pass through, could that explain why Buckingham arrived at Northampton when he did  he'd been following Rivers since they'd passed Mancetter? It would certainly make sense for Rivers to head east to connect with the old Roman road known as Watling Street in order to connect with the north-south road to London. It would also mean Buckingham could have been accompanying Rivers for two or three days before arriving at Northampton. Of course, we' d then be faced with why Rivers would spill the beans so to speak, concerning what Rivers et al seemingly were planning. I don't know if it's enough, but Buckingham was not only married to Edward's aunt, she was Elizabeth Woodville's sister. Then there were the possible Lancastrian ties; Buckingham's father and grandfather had both supported the Lancastrian cause, with his father possibly dying from wounds received while fighting for it. The Greys and, until Elizabeth Woodville married Edward IV, the Woodvilles were also supporters of the House of Lancaster. While it's sheer supposition, it certainly seems possible to me that, while presuming ties that didn't exist, Rivers either informed Buckingham of the plans for Edward's coronation (and possibly remaking the Council?) or perhaps dropped enough hints about those plans so that, when Richard arrived, Buckingham could at least warn him that Rivers was up to something. And Richard took it from there... Doug (Who now wonders if that :letter from Hastings wasn't yet another attempt to depict Richard in a bad light? Here was this man who'd warned Richard about the Woodvilles' plotting, only to later be killed by Richard?) Carol wrote:
I don't think we even know that Hastings sent Richard a letter. Croyland says nothing about it, and Mancini purports to quote it as if he had seen it, which, of course, he could not have done (just as he purports to quote the conversation at Stony Stratford verbatim even though he could at best have heard a biased and translated paraphrase). These humanist "historians" take liberties to tell a good story and present a moral. We do ourselves, and history, a disservice if we take them at their word.
Now, of course, *someone* must have informed Richard that the Woodvilles were up to something and he needed to hurry and it makes sense that the someone would have been Hastings, but do we know that for sure? (The contents of the letter, of course, are pure speculation on Mancini's part.)
It might even have been Buckingham who informed him for all we know. That the Woodvilles were up to no good, attempting to run the government without the Lord High Constable and designated Protector (Richard), sending out ship's without Lord Admiral Richard's authorization, and taking control of the Tower and its treasures we know for sure. And we do have Croyland's remark that Hastings approved of Richard's handling of Stony Stratford "without so much blood as a cut finger" to quote from memory. But we need to take any letters quoted by Mancini with a grain of salt.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellio

2018-01-12 15:25:56
Doug Stamate
Carol wrote:
"I can't think of anything more contrary to Buckingham's interests than
reinstating EV considering how active he had been in spreading the
information about Edward's illegitimacy, deposing him, and, in general,
supporting Richard. So either he (for reasons incomprehensible to me)
thought he would be better off under the claimless HT than he was under
Richard or he wanted to be king himself, his own claim being flawless with
regard to legitimacy though of course there were others who had a better
claim with regard to descent (none interested in claiming the throne that we
know of, aside from Richard who was already king)."

Doug here:
Wouldn't it all depend on what Buckingham originally wanted? What if his
original goal was simply to have his status as a Royal Duke confirmed by his
inclusion amongst the "movers and shakers"? Then he was, or so Morton might
say, shunted off to Brecon; about as far from Richard, and Buckingham's
rightful place at the center of things, as one could get and still be in the
kingdom. There would have been several avenues of approach open to Morton,
but they all depended on Buckingham already having an over-inflated view of
himself and his abilities waiting to be played on.
My understanding of Buckingham's actions is that he first supported
Richard's conception of the Protectorate, then, when the Pre-Contract was
brought before the Council supported it. Other than, I think, a speech to
the members of London's council, I don't recall Buckingham being any more
involved in Edward's deposition than other members of the Council.
FWIW, I've never bought into the idea that Buckingham ever contemplated
supporting Tudor as king. For one thing, his ego would never have permitted
it. No Act of Parliament had been required to make any of his forebears
legitimate!
My theory is that Morton, recognizing he had absolutely no future if Richard
remained king, worked on Buckingham to convince him to switch to supporting
a restoration of Edward. Whether Morton encouraged Buckingham to believe he
would become Protector or, more likely, simply pointed out how vital
Buckingham's support would be, I can't say. But it does seem to me that, at
some point after originally agreeing to support a rebellion in favor of his
nephew, Buckingham decided that it was a better idea to hijack the rebellion
in his own favor.
Because I do believe that rumors about the boys' death were spread. I also
believe that the rumors were part of someone's plan. What I find
inconceivable is that "someone" being either Richard, in a possible attempt
to depress rebel turn-out, or Morton, because I don't believe Morton ever
seriously considered Buckingham as a possible candidate for the throne.
Which leaves Buckingham as the one who, I think, proposed the idea of the
rumors as means of diverting the rebellion from Edward, supposedly dead in
the Tower, to himself. The question being: Did Buckingham, thinking such
rumors would boost his support, spread the rumors himself or did Morton,
recognizing the looming disaster Buckingham was heading towards, decide to
help Henry Stafford along his way?
Doug


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

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-12 15:45:14
Doug Stamate
Carol,
Don't ever worry about "snipping"! I try to be succinct, but...
We know, as you say, that Richard served in Warwick's household, but where
did George serve his stint? For some unknown reason, I thought George also
served in Warwick's household; which, if true, would bring us back to the
question of why the two turned out so differently. Of course, if George also
served in Warwick's household, he'd have done so as Edward's heir, wouldn't
he? Perhaps that's the difference?
Doug
Who doesn't even want to imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Edward
bypassed George as his son's Protector!

Carol wrote:
"I snipped your thoughtful observations on Richard and George for sake of
space, but I agree with them. I would add that George went from being
Edward's heir to being second and then third in line when Edward had sons,
and he must have felt threatened by Edward's marriage (setting aside the
problematic nature of that specific marriage) and by each successive
pregnancy. His relief when the first three children were female would not
completely still the anxiety that the next child might be male. Essentially,
having been heir to the throne, he wanted to remain there by whatever means.
But also, he never seems to have undergone the sort of training or education
for responsible leadership that Richard, three years younger, received from
Warwick, nor does he seem to have had Richard's natural aptitude for work
and responsibility.
I can only imagine the consequences if he had still been alive when Edward
died and the precontract had been revealed, especially if Edward had
appointed Richard, not George, as Protector. Feathers would have flown!"



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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 16:11:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary, If that program with the Queen was made by the BBC, it might show up on BBCAmerica sometime over the next few weeks, but I won't hold my breath. BBCAmerica used to show her Christmas Speech as part of the lead-up to the Doctor Who Christmas special, but haven't done so for at least the past few years. I agree that anointing would add something to how a monarch was viewed as being somehow somewhat apart from the ordinary run of people. I do think, however, that the main point was to get Edward crowned and in a position to, on his own, reshape the Council into a more Woodville-friendly body. It's certainly possible quite a few people may have heard rumors about Edward and Eleanor, but I do think the number of people who actually knew the truth must have been fairly limited. If Edward didn't want to recognize his marriage to Eleanor, especially if that marriage made his children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate, even knowing from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Edward was still legally married to Eleanor on that May Day in 1464, would be very dangerous. Certainly not something that would come up in general conversation! Doug Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore. Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen. I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 16:39:58
Bale Paul Trevor
I thought the series on the illnesses of the royals would turn out to be interesting until I started watching it and it begins with the bloody Tudors again. So no scoliosis, no Edward IV dying young, no Henry V having advanced surgery to remove an arrow from his face, nothing from all those monarchs before fat Henry! When are television people going to stop with the damn Tudors all the time? The Jane Grey series was interesting, if overblown, three hours was far too long for what the presenter had to say, but yet more Tudor worship? One person in the royal illness series opener actually had to gall to tell us we should feel sorry for Henry VIII because of the weight of expectation on his shoulders in having to produce a male heir, and he was only human after all! Yeah right. Wife can't have healthy son, divorce her and send her off to a miserable life in the country somewhere, replace her with someone who also cant produce a healthy boy, so chop her head off. Wife dies giving birth to son, still got a male heir so what?Yes lets feel sorry for him, but say whatever fiction you like about an honourable man like Richard and all he went through!Grrr. Television documentaries made me so angry at times!Living in France as I now do I am able to wallow in the wealth of really incisive, in depth historical documentaries they make here!But when it comes to British history its as if history only began in 1509 with Fat Henry for the BBC!Paul

On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:11, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,If that program with the Queen was made by the BBC, it might show up on BBCAmerica sometime over the next few weeks, but I won't hold my breath. BBCAmerica used to show her Christmas Speech as part of the lead-up to the Doctor Who Christmas special, but haven't done so for at least the past few years.I agree that anointing would add something to how a monarch was viewed as being somehow somewhat apart from the ordinary run of people. I do think, however, that the main point was to get Edward crowned and in a position to, on his own, reshape the Council into a more Woodville-friendly body.It's certainly possible quite a few people may have heard rumors about Edward and Eleanor, but I do think the number of people who actually knew the truth must have been fairly limited. If Edward didn't want to recognize his marriage to Eleanor, especially if that marriage made his children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate, even knowing from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Edward was still legally married to Eleanor on that May Day in 1464, would be very dangerous. Certainly not something that would come up in general conversation!Doug Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 16:47:05
Karen O
     Is Tudor worship politically correct? They are the Founding Fathers of the current royal family. I can't help getting the impression of a still north south Catholic Protestant divide that works itself out. Is it important you think, to keep up the picture of Richard as the violent usurper, and hold up the Tudors because the queen is descended from Henry VII daughter? 
On Jan 12, 2018 11:40 AM, "Bale Paul Trevor bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:
 

I thought the series on the illnesses of the royals would turn out to be interesting until I started watching it and it begins with the bloody Tudors again. So no scoliosis, no Edward IV dying young, no Henry V having advanced surgery to remove an arrow from his face, nothing from all those monarchs before fat Henry! When are television people going to stop with the damn Tudors all the time? The Jane Grey series was interesting, if overblown, three hours was far too long for what the presenter had to say, but yet more Tudor worship? One person in the royal illness series opener actually had to gall to tell us we should feel sorry for Henry VIII because of the weight of expectation on his shoulders in having to produce a male heir, and he was only human after all! Yeah right. Wife can't have healthy son, divorce her and send her off to a miserable life in the country somewhere, replace her with someone who also cant produce a healthy boy, so chop her head off. Wife dies giving birth to son, still got a male heir so what?Yes lets feel sorry for him, but say whatever fiction you like about an honourable man like Richard and all he went through!Grrr. Television documentaries made me so angry at times!Living in France as I now do I am able to wallow in the wealth of really incisive, in depth historical documentaries they make here!But when it comes to British history its as if history only began in 1509 with Fat Henry for the BBC!Paul

On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:11, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

  Hilary,If that program with the Queen was made by the BBC, it might show up on BBCAmerica sometime over the next few weeks, but I won't hold my breath. BBCAmerica used to show her Christmas Speech as part of the lead-up to the Doctor Who Christmas special, but haven't done so for at least the past few years.I agree that anointing would add something to how a monarch was viewed as being somehow somewhat apart from the ordinary run of people. I do think, however, that the main point was to get Edward crowned and in a position to, on his own, reshape the Council into a more Woodville-friendly body.It's certainly possible quite a few people may have heard rumors about Edward and Eleanor, but I do think the number of people who actually knew the truth must have been fairly limited. If Edward didn't want to recognize his marriage to Eleanor, especially if that marriage made his children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate, even knowing from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Edward was still legally married to Eleanor on that May Day in 1464, would be very dangerous. Certainly not something that would come up in general conversation!Doug Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later!  
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 16:50:21
Doug Stamate
Nico, My main reason for thinking both Buckingham and Morton originally aimed at restoring Edward V is that doing so would require every bit of support that could be mustered. Restoring Edward V would bring in the Woodvilles and any of their affinity. It would also bring in those supporters of Edward IV who may have felt displaced by Richard. The accession of Margaret Beaufort would bring in her affinity and, just possibly, that of her husband, Lord Stanley (depending on how good he felt the odds were). Morton might be expected to bring some of the Lancastrians not already on board via the Woodvilles and Margaret. And, of course, there'd be all those people who'd flock to the cause because Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was leading it! Which, BTW, is how Buckingham eventually viewed it all: If he was to be the center of the rebellion, why shouldn't he reap the benefits  all the benefits? As for the Woodvilles, once Rivers and Grey were dead, who was left besides Lionel and Dorset? I ask because there were an awful lot of important posts that would need filling, unless the good Bishop and Dorset were going to hog them all themselves. Which would have meant all sorts of deals being contemplated, possibly even proffered? The net would have to be fairly wide if only to guard against a revolt in favor of Richard's son who, if I understand correctly, would automatically become king on his father's death. Basically, a successful rebellion aiming at re-instating Edward V would require the support of everyone who didn't support Richard  and even then still stood a good chance of failure. I wonder if that King's Mother thing with Margaret Beaufort wasn't because for years, literally decades, she'd been Henry's constant, sometimes only, supporter? Then there were all the risks she'd run, trying to get Henry back into England; risks that, had Edward or Richard wished, could have placed her body in the Tower or her head on the block. So she was given a position of prominence and some responsibility over Henry's family in recognition of those efforts. I keep forgetting that connection Margaret had with the failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower. Just when was that attempt made? If it was in August, then we're looking at Margaret plotting with Elizabeth within a month of the former holding Queen Anne's train at Richard's coronation. Tacky, tacky! Doug Nico wrote: If Buckingham's ego was big enough and it probably was, that could have been the case, but would really seriously considered it without feeling assured that he would have considerable backing? Displacing one anointed King (Richard) as well as another contender (Edward V). This is why I suspect that Morton, after the precontract was revealed may have preferred Buckingham to the Edward V. After all, Buckingham was an adult, and the two previous child kings, Henry III and Richard II turned out to be weak and faction dominated. Therefore, Morton may have justified turning his attention to Buckingham for those reasons, as Edward V's Woodville dominated reign could easily have gone in that direction. There was also the Henry VI/MoA/old Lancaster factor. While Morton made his peace with Edward after Tewkesbury and got some prominent positions, they were away from the centre of power and he was never on Edward V's council. What he, Bray and MB all had in common were close connections to Henry VI's reign, which they all had good reason to feel some nostalgia for, so they may have decided that Buckingham with his Beaufort descent and his legal claim to the throne through the Stafford line was the heir to old Lancaster, expecting, of course, to be handsomely rewarded for their efforts... As for the Woodvilles, while I could see Morton and some of the older Lancastrian families gravitating towards Anthony Woodville if the rewards were good enough, but I'm not sure about the situation once he was dead. AW was an accomplished intellectual and would have commanded considerable respect, but not all Woodvilles were created equal. However, a boy king dominated by the Marquis of Dorset may have been another story altogether. FWIW, the 'we are so powerful' comment speaks volumes about the MofD - arrogant, greedy, impulsive, short-sighted... to name just a few negative characteristics. Actually, Dorset typifies the unpleasant Woodville stereotype more than any of them. Despite all the titles, land and privilege, (enabled by EW), he never actually accomplished anything of note, probably wasn't very bright and was central to the sleazier aspects of Edward IV's life. It is also interesting that EIV chose his younger brother, Richard Grey to be a co-guardian of E5, rather than him. Not much to recommend for someone who would without doubt push his way to being EV's chief advisor. As for the other Woodvilles, Lionel was also intellectually accomplished, but the other two seem less so. Edward tried to escape with the treasury, and seems a bit of a law unto himself. It is harder to say about Richard jr, but he doesn't seem to have done much either. While AW and Lionel may have worked as guardians of young EV, the others would have given anyone doubts. They may even have ended up fighting amongst each other. Margaret Beaufort intrigues me most here. I agree with you that her main intention was getting HT back, and may well have had no plans for him to be King. However, there is something about her personality that likes to be at the centre of things, to be involved and be in control which is evident in the prominent role she took on as 'The King's Mother.' Also, Welles was involved in the Tower assault, and she was clearly using her contacts at an early stage. I think she would have liked a Lancaster monarchy under Buckingham, with her and HT in prominent roles. However, I also think that HT's push for the throne was his own idea, not something he was pushed into by her.
Ah, I see now. The slur was that Edward, with a perfectly good marriage already in place with Eleanor, bypassed acknowledging her and not only married Elizabeth Woodville, but also acknowledged her as his queen. IOW, what was wrong with Eleanor that she shouldn't have been good enough, while Elizabeth Woodville was?
It was probably a combination of luck and circumstanc, plus whatever it was that encouraged Eleanor to withdraw from the scene. Firstly, accounts of EW's wedding say that it was at Grafton Regis with Jacquetta, among others as a witness. While he may have intended the circumstances to be more clandestine, it would be hard to challenge Jacquetta and her prominent family by denying it. Also, the 'secret' marriage to EW became public knowledge when he felt forced to give a reason for turning down Warwick's French alliance.

Personally, I believe that Hastings' actions were the result of his knowing that Stillington's allegations, plus any supporting statements, had enough support on the Council to be accepted as being true. I think that the attempt on Richard's life in June 1483 was to prevent his being available as a legitimate alternative to his nephew. IOW, remove Richard and the Council could claim that Stilligton's allegations had no basis in fact.
You are probably right about this. If manipulating the council to reject and suppress the precontract was the only way of holding on to what he had, then he may have felt that removing Richard was the only way.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 17:03:18
ricard1an
Well Paul you must know that civilisation only began at around 10 oclock on 22 August 1485!! Well that's what some people would have you believe anyway.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 21:58:34
Nicholas Brown

Doug: My main reason for thinking both Buckingham and Morton originally aimed at restoring Edward V is that doing so would require every bit of support that could be mustered. Restoring Edward V would bring in the Woodvilles and any of their affinity. It would also bring in those supporters of Edward IV who may have felt displaced by Richard. The accession of Margaret Beaufort would bring in her affinity and, just possibly, that of her husband, Lord Stanley (depending on how good he felt the odds were). Morton might be expected to bring some of the Lancastrians not already on board via the Woodvilles and Margaret...And, of course, there'd be all those people who'd flock to the cause because Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham was leading it! Which, BTW, is how Buckingham eventually viewed it all: If he was to be the center of the rebellion, why shouldn't he reap the benefits  all the benefits?
I could see Morton envisaging something along these lines with a grand plan to unite various factions around Edward V, with himself in a very important position. If he thought that it was possible to manipulate the council and suppress the precontract story to achieve this, he may well have been involved in the Hastings plot. He may even have considered restoring EV, but I think the acceptance of the precontract may have changed the entire picture in terms of support, and Morton may have had to reconsider his candidate. I'm not convinced that Buckingham and Morton were on the same page in the early stages, because I can't see Buckingham having any interest in restoring EV. Initially, he supported Richard, but when that didn't work out he wanted the crown for himself. As you say, why should he lead a rebellion in favour of someone less entitled to the benefits than him? The most likely supporters for EV's restoration would have been Edwardian Yorkists like William Stanley and, of course, the Woodvilles. However, others may have been less enthusiastic about the illegitimate boy King, especiallly Lancastrians who had suffered losses under EIV. If the Talbots joined the rebellion, they would be most likely supporting Buckingham rather than the son of the EW, who had supplanted Eleanor as Queen. Some Lancastrians may also have felt bitter about the Woodvilles' success when they changed sides and prospered so much after EW's marriage (in some cases from of some of the Lancastrian families losses). Since, they didn't have anything to gain from Richard, they may seen Buckingham could be a fresh start. Actually, I can see Morton himself thinking along these lines, as well as MB and Reggie Bray. As far as I know, Bray and his family didn't benefit at all from EIV, something of a demotion from the days when his father was one of Henry VI's doctors. FWIW, Bray had served the Stafford family for some time and carried messages between Morton and Buckingham. MB appears to have thought highly of him, and since he worked closely with her, he had plenty of time to convince her to join Buckingham's cause, that is if she needed persuading at all. Nevertheless, as you say, a rebellion that had to change its focus was a logistical nightmare.
Doug: I keep forgetting that connection Margaret had with the failed attempt to rescue Edward and Richard from the Tower. Just when was that attempt made? If it was in August, then we're looking at Margaret plotting with Elizabeth within a month of the former holding Queen Anne's train at Richard's coronation. Tacky, tacky!

The 'rescue attempt' may have been as early as late July, and MB and EW may already have been plotting, and all within a month of MB having the honour of carrying Queen Anne's train at her coronation. Tacky, absolutely! Treacherous too, and this is another reason why I believe that MB may have been using the EW and the Woodvilles to ensure HT's return if EV ever did get his crown back, while her actual preference was Buckingham as soon as he could be enticed into the rebellion. What the intended purpose of the 'rescue' was is open to debate, but since Welles was involved, could Morton and MB have been planning to take the boys into their custody?
Nico



On Friday, 12 January 2018, 17:03:23 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Well Paul you must know that civilisation only began at around 10 oclock on 22 August 1485!! Well that's what some people would have you believe anyway.


Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-12 22:10:47
Nicholas Brown
Re: The Hasting's Letter
I thought that it was Hastings that informed Richard that EIV had died, and the EW had not informed him because she and the Woodvilles were playing for more time to rush EV's coronation. Is this just Mancini, and if incorrect how did Richard find out that EIV was dead if there was no letter from Hastings?
Nico

On Friday, 12 January 2018, 15:45:20 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Carol,
Don't ever worry about "snipping"! I try to be succinct, but...
We know, as you say, that Richard served in Warwick's household, but where
did George serve his stint? For some unknown reason, I thought George also
served in Warwick's household; which, if true, would bring us back to the
question of why the two turned out so differently. Of course, if George also
served in Warwick's household, he'd have done so as Edward's heir, wouldn't
he? Perhaps that's the difference?
Doug
Who doesn't even want to imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Edward
bypassed George as his son's Protector!

Carol wrote:
"I snipped your thoughtful observations on Richard and George for sake of
space, but I agree with them. I would add that George went from being
Edward's heir to being second and then third in line when Edward had sons,
and he must have felt threatened by Edward's marriage (setting aside the
problematic nature of that specific marriage) and by each successive
pregnancy. His relief when the first three children were female would not
completely still the anxiety that the next child might be male. Essentially,
having been heir to the throne, he wanted to remain there by whatever means.
But also, he never seems to have undergone the sort of training or education
for responsible leadership that Richard, three years younger, received from
Warwick, nor does he seem to have had Richard's natural aptitude for work
and responsibility.
I can only imagine the consequences if he had still been alive when Edward
died and the precontract had been revealed, especially if Edward had
appointed Richard, not George, as Protector. Feathers would have flown!"

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

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-12 22:32:08
Nicholas Brown
Karen, I don't think it is so much Tudor worship as laziness and lack of imagination. I'm sure lots of people would like to see shows about earlier Kings, but they would have to go to the trouble of extra research when there is so much Tudor stuff already there to rehash. It's cheaper too. I don't think the programme makers could care less what the present Royal Family think. Fortunately, there is very little deference to the Royal Family nowadays. Nico

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 07:23:17
Paul Trevor bale
It is a very tenuous link from HenryVII to the current monarch that goes via Scotland, Bohemia, and Hannover. And I recall Princess Diana as having more royal blood than her husband as a direct descent from Charles II, even from the wrong side of the blanket!Back to Clarence. He was trained with Richard at Middleham under Warwick, with Warwick throwing his eldest daughter in his way in order to have control over George should Edward have no issue. Hence part of Warwick's fury at discovering Edward had married Elizabeth Woodville. This also began the rift between the brothers, with Richard leaving Warwick to join his brother the king. When George married Isobel without the kings permission it was Edward's turn to lose it, as it was clearly Warwick's intention to groom the heir apparent. Richard later on was careful to ask Edwards permission to marry Anne, which, in spite of George's objections, he got. But by then George was after the wealth not the support for when he became king. George certainly had charisma and so much charm he was able to talk Edward and Richard round to forgiving him for his betrayal. But Edward was careful to keep him close from then on. It was the same with Buckingham, who also appears to have charisma and charm, a shadow of Clarence that Richard responded to. Though they had known each other since childhood, and while information on Buckingham is scant, and I can tell you I have tried really hard to dig stuff up on Harry, the duchess of York and George, Margaret, and Richard were held under house arrest at Tonbridge, à Stafford home at the time, after Ludlow, Cecile Neville's sister Anne was duchess of Buckingham, and her son was with her; there was a wine buying trip he went on with Clarence while in their teens, though I've lost the source. One also has to assume such a powerful noble and landowner would have had a force at one or other of the later battles in the wars, though he is not mentioned in any record I have found. Is father having been killed at St Albans fighting for Henry, probably the reason Edward kept him at court and close at hand. And he returned to England with Richard when Richard showed his displeasure at the Picquiny deal.PaulEnvoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 janv. 2018 à 17:47, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> a écrit :

Is Tudor worship politically correct? They are the Founding Fathers of the current royal family. I can't help getting the impression of a still north south Catholic Protestant divide that works itself out. Is it important you think, to keep up the picture of Richard as the violent usurper, and hold up the Tudors because the queen is descended from Henry VII daughter?
On Jan 12, 2018 11:40 AM, "Bale Paul Trevor bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:

I thought the series on the illnesses of the royals would turn out to be interesting until I started watching it and it begins with the bloody Tudors again. So no scoliosis, no Edward IV dying young, no Henry V having advanced surgery to remove an arrow from his face, nothing from all those monarchs before fat Henry! When are television people going to stop with the damn Tudors all the time?

The Jane Grey series was interesting, if overblown, three hours was far too long for what the presenter had to say, but yet more Tudor worship? One person in the royal illness series opener actually had to gall to tell us we should feel sorry for Henry VIII because of the weight of expectation on his shoulders in having to produce a male heir, and he was only human after all! Yeah right. Wife can't have healthy son, divorce her and send her off to a miserable life in the country somewhere, replace her with someone who also cant produce a healthy boy, so chop her head off. Wife dies giving birth to son, still got a male heir so what?Yes lets feel sorry for him, but say whatever fiction you like about an honourable man like Richard and all he went through!Grrr. Television documentaries made me so angry at times!Living in France as I now do I am able to wallow in the wealth of really incisive, in depth historical documentaries they make here!But when it comes to British history its as if history only began in 1509 with Fat Henry for the BBC!Paul

On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:11, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary,If that program with the Queen was made by the BBC, it might show up on BBCAmerica sometime over the next few weeks, but I won't hold my breath. BBCAmerica used to show her Christmas Speech as part of the lead-up to the Doctor Who Christmas special, but haven't done so for at least the past few years.I agree that anointing would add something to how a monarch was viewed as being somehow somewhat apart from the ordinary run of people. I do think, however, that the main point was to get Edward crowned and in a position to, on his own, reshape the Council into a more Woodville-friendly body.It's certainly possible quite a few people may have heard rumors about Edward and Eleanor, but I do think the number of people who actually knew the truth must have been fairly limited. If Edward didn't want to recognize his marriage to Eleanor, especially if that marriage made his children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate, even knowing from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Edward was still legally married to Eleanor on that May Day in 1464, would be very dangerous. Certainly not something that would come up in general conversation!Doug Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 08:55:07
Hilary Jones
I don't think you can really call them founders. The present royal family has come through a lot of twists and turns and their founding fathers are pretty German as well. It didn't 'start' with EOY, what about her parents, who of course go back to the Conqueror? It's interesting that some of the families who came over with him probably have a more distinguished European and Scandinavian heritage than him. He was, after all, a bastard. H
On Friday, 12 January 2018, 16:47:17 GMT, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

Is Tudor worship politically correct? They are the Founding Fathers of the current royal family. I can't help getting the impression of a still north south Catholic Protestant divide that works itself out. Is it important you think, to keep up the picture of Richard as the violent usurper, and hold up the Tudors because the queen is descended from Henry VII daughter?
On Jan 12, 2018 11:40 AM, "Bale Paul Trevor bale.paul-trevor@... []" <> wrote:

I thought the series on the illnesses of the royals would turn out to be interesting until I started watching it and it begins with the bloody Tudors again. So no scoliosis, no Edward IV dying young, no Henry V having advanced surgery to remove an arrow from his face, nothing from all those monarchs before fat Henry! When are television people going to stop with the damn Tudors all the time?

The Jane Grey series was interesting, if overblown, three hours was far too long for what the presenter had to say, but yet more Tudor worship? One person in the royal illness series opener actually had to gall to tell us we should feel sorry for Henry VIII because of the weight of expectation on his shoulders in having to produce a male heir, and he was only human after all! Yeah right. Wife can't have healthy son, divorce her and send her off to a miserable life in the country somewhere, replace her with someone who also cant produce a healthy boy, so chop her head off. Wife dies giving birth to son, still got a male heir so what?Yes lets feel sorry for him, but say whatever fiction you like about an honourable man like Richard and all he went through!Grrr. Television documentaries made me so angry at times!Living in France as I now do I am able to wallow in the wealth of really incisive, in depth historical documentaries they make here!But when it comes to British history its as if history only began in 1509 with Fat Henry for the BBC!Paul

On 12 Jan 2018, at 17:11, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary,If that program with the Queen was made by the BBC, it might show up on BBCAmerica sometime over the next few weeks, but I won't hold my breath. BBCAmerica used to show her Christmas Speech as part of the lead-up to the Doctor Who Christmas special, but haven't done so for at least the past few years.I agree that anointing would add something to how a monarch was viewed as being somehow somewhat apart from the ordinary run of people. I do think, however, that the main point was to get Edward crowned and in a position to, on his own, reshape the Council into a more Woodville-friendly body.It's certainly possible quite a few people may have heard rumors about Edward and Eleanor, but I do think the number of people who actually knew the truth must have been fairly limited. If Edward didn't want to recognize his marriage to Eleanor, especially if that marriage made his children by Elizabeth Woodville illegitimate, even knowing from the horse's mouth, so to speak, that Edward was still legally married to Eleanor on that May Day in 1464, would be very dangerous. Certainly not something that would come up in general conversation!Doug Hilary wrote:Hi Doug, to take the anointing first, by pure co-incidence this week our current Queen has been speaking about her coronation. I think it's be be shown on US TV this weekend, it is on ours? She says in the 'trailer' that she felt her reign truly began at her coronation - which was more than a year after she succeeded to the throne. So it still has that mistique.She also says she likes the Black Prince's ruby - which Richard no doubt wore.Re your reasoning on the rest I think it makes a great deal of sense and would explain George's actions. If Anne Beauchamp also told Anne, then I don't reckon Anne told Richard. But perhaps she was quite happy where she was with her life in the North, and neither would she at that point stand to be queen.I've still to catch up on a lot of stuff and will be back later!
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.


Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 08:56:17
Hilary Jones
Wasn't it 21st August Mary :) :) H
On Friday, 12 January 2018, 17:03:23 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Well Paul you must know that civilisation only began at around 10 oclock on 22 August 1485!! Well that's what some people would have you believe anyway.


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 11:43:27
ricard1an
Always thought it was 22nd of August.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 11:44:54
ricard1an
Just had a thought are you referring to the fact that the delightful Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth?
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-13 16:26:49
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Anyway, when it came to proving the precontract, the hearsay rule wouldn't have applied, as it wasn't used until a few centuries later, and even the (in England anyway) it was only for criminal cases. Therefore, if knowledge of the precontract came from people close to Eleanor, that testimony should have been acceptable. Also, while Stillington came forward with the evidence he may have been able to produce the actual priest involved to give first hand testimony, but if not, credible evidence as to how he came to learn of it, could be considered. Family members, such as her brother Humphrey and sister Elizabeth also would probably have been called to say what Eleanor told him (and perhaps her feelings about it) as would Catesby if he knew a anything about it. Cousins/aunts/uncles such as Buckingham (via his mother) and Anne Beauchamp may also have known and testified. It is unfortunate that there are no records of what the proof actually was, but knowledge probably was confined to that very small circle. Doug here: If we needn't worry about evidence being hearsay, then, considering the status of those involved, sworn statements would likely have done, don't you think? We know Catesby was in London and would have been available to make a deposition, do we know where any of Eleanor's surviving relatives were at this time? Any who were titled might very well be in London for Edward's never-carried-out coronation and succeeding Parliament, which would make them easily available as well. It's very likely I'm missing something, but it seems to me there were only two ways for Stillington to have known about the marriage; either he was there or the priest who officiated told him. If Stillington had been the officiating priest, why haven't his claims come down to us as first-person claims on his part? Instead, for centuries we've been informed that he presented (or some such similar verb) his evidence, which certainly implies the evidence wasn't his own, personal knowledge of the event. Based on that reasoning, it seems to me that most likely source of Stillington's proof of a marriage between Edward and Eleanor was via the priest own admission to Stillington. A death-bed admission would have been accepted as at least the equal of any sworn in front of any Earthly judge, or so I understand. The other possibility is that the information came via the Confessional; either directly to Stillington or, if I understand it correctly, by means of Stillington's standing as a bishop to allow a priest, which would include Stillington himself, break the vow of silence associated with the Confessional. IOW, either Stillington heard the confession himself or he was informed by the priest who had; with, in either case, Stillington absolving either himself or the priest of breaking the Confessional vow. Was there a priest in Eleanor's household? And, if so, do we know what happened to him? Did he survive Eleanor? Of course, there is the possibility that there was no officiating priest. That the marriage ceremony consisted of Edward and Eleanor exchanging vows and then consummating their union, with the latter having the effect of legalizing the marriage. What Stillington's proofs would have been if that had been the case, I don't know. Nico continued: Anne Beauchamp is borderline. She was Eleanor's aunt, but she may have not been as close as others such as Buckingham's mother because of the Berkeley inheritance dispute, but there seems to have been some contact, so maybe she did know, and if so, was the most likely source of Clarence getting the information, and by extension ideas about his an Warwick's safety as the next legal heirs. What puzzles me if that if Isabel knew and told Clarence (and was murdered?), then Anne must have known too, but Richard doesn't appear to have been aware, and was supporting EV until the news came out. Maybe she withheld what she knew because she thought Richard might ask Edward about which would cause trouble for her mother. Doug here: I think that, to make any sense of this, we have to differentiate between two groups of people: the first would be anyone who actually knew about Edward and Eleanor via either Eleanor herself or the priest (if, as I do, one presumes there was one) and those people who may have heard rumors about the marriage. In the first group would be Eleanor herself, probably one of the Catesbys (most likely originally the elder), and one or two trusted relatives. I just can't see any greater number actually knowing, if only because the opposition such knowledge would have caused while Edward IV was still alive. Not only would he be faced with charges of throwing over a perfectly acceptable, legal wife (a Talbot, no less!), there'd be that little matter of him planning to foist a bastard off as his legitimate heir! However, as far as we know and while he was alive, no such opposition developed. Edward's actions were going against the very basis of English society and government and, although perhaps it's just me, I can't see such knowledge, if widespread, not causing all sorts of problems for Edward. Rumors, on the other hand, are something else again. For one thing, while it's entirely possible Edward wouldn't even be aware of them. it wouldn't necessarily mean that people such as George, Isabel, even Anne, didn't hear them, though. Having heard the rumors could certainly help explain George's actions after Isabel died, but I while can't say whether he heard them before or afterwards. I tend to think it was afterwards, but that's not set in stone. Nico concluded: As for the anointing, if the Woodvilles had managed to get the coronation done, it may have swayed enough council members to support EV, as they may have interpreted it as God's will. Even HT was uncomfortable about Lambert Simnel, believing that the coronation in Dublin gave him some sort of holy or priestly status. Doug here: While the anointing would have provided extra protection, so to speak; I'm now leaning towards the idea that it was the coronation itself the Woodvilles were after. In particular, a coronation that took place in the absence of the Protector, thus giving them time to reshuffle to Council with the likely intention of neutering Richard's authority. He might still be Protector, but the power would lie with the Woodville-dominated Council  and King. Perhaps it's just the cynic in me... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-14 10:14:46
Hilary Jones
Got it!! :)) :)) H
On Saturday, 13 January 2018, 11:45:01 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Just had a thought are you referring to the fact that the delightful Henry dated his reign from the day before Bosworth?


Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-14 10:21:42
Hilary Jones
Re you Confessor point, remember Edward & EW's Confessor Father John Ingleby was the brother of Stillington's nephew. The other brother was Squire of the Body to Richard, though not a prominent one. Yet another reason to think that Stillington was in the Yorkist camp, if not overtly.
Marie did some time ago say that there was a 'suspect' priest from nearby Potterspury of Paulerspury, can't remember which or his name and he died well before Edward. Are you still out there, Marie? H
On Saturday, 13 January 2018, 16:26:56 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Anyway, when it came to proving the precontract, the hearsay rule wouldn't have applied, as it wasn't used until a few centuries later, and even the (in England anyway) it was only for criminal cases. Therefore, if knowledge of the precontract came from people close to Eleanor, that testimony should have been acceptable. Also, while Stillington came forward with the evidence he may have been able to produce the actual priest involved to give first hand testimony, but if not, credible evidence as to how he came to learn of it, could be considered. Family members, such as her brother Humphrey and sister Elizabeth also would probably have been called to say what Eleanor told him (and perhaps her feelings about it) as would Catesby if he knew a anything about it. Cousins/aunts/uncles such as Buckingham (via his mother) and Anne Beauchamp may also have known and testified. It is unfortunate that there are no records of what the proof actually was, but knowledge probably was confined to that very small circle. Doug here: If we needn't worry about evidence being hearsay, then, considering the status of those involved, sworn statements would likely have done, don't you think? We know Catesby was in London and would have been available to make a deposition, do we know where any of Eleanor's surviving relatives were at this time? Any who were titled might very well be in London for Edward's never-carried-out coronation and succeeding Parliament, which would make them easily available as well. It's very likely I'm missing something, but it seems to me there were only two ways for Stillington to have known about the marriage; either he was there or the priest who officiated told him. If Stillington had been the officiating priest, why haven't his claims come down to us as first-person claims on his part? Instead, for centuries we've been informed that he presented (or some such similar verb) his evidence, which certainly implies the evidence wasn't his own, personal knowledge of the event. Based on that reasoning, it seems to me that most likely source of Stillington's proof of a marriage between Edward and Eleanor was via the priest own admission to Stillington. A death-bed admission would have been accepted as at least the equal of any sworn in front of any Earthly judge, or so I understand. The other possibility is that the information came via the Confessional; either directly to Stillington or, if I understand it correctly, by means of Stillington's standing as a bishop to allow a priest, which would include Stillington himself, break the vow of silence associated with the Confessional. IOW, either Stillington heard the confession himself or he was informed by the priest who had; with, in either case, Stillington absolving either himself or the priest of breaking the Confessional vow. Was there a priest in Eleanor's household? And, if so, do we know what happened to him? Did he survive Eleanor? Of course, there is the possibility that there was no officiating priest. That the marriage ceremony consisted of Edward and Eleanor exchanging vows and then consummating their union, with the latter having the effect of legalizing the marriage. What Stillington's proofs would have been if that had been the case, I don't know. Nico continued: Anne Beauchamp is borderline. She was Eleanor's aunt, but she may have not been as close as others such as Buckingham's mother because of the Berkeley inheritance dispute, but there seems to have been some contact, so maybe she did know, and if so, was the most likely source of Clarence getting the information, and by extension ideas about his an Warwick's safety as the next legal heirs. What puzzles me if that if Isabel knew and told Clarence (and was murdered?), then Anne must have known too, but Richard doesn't appear to have been aware, and was supporting EV until the news came out. Maybe she withheld what she knew because she thought Richard might ask Edward about which would cause trouble for her mother. Doug here: I think that, to make any sense of this, we have to differentiate between two groups of people: the first would be anyone who actually knew about Edward and Eleanor via either Eleanor herself or the priest (if, as I do, one presumes there was one) and those people who may have heard rumors about the marriage. In the first group would be Eleanor herself, probably one of the Catesbys (most likely originally the elder), and one or two trusted relatives. I just can't see any greater number actually knowing, if only because the opposition such knowledge would have caused while Edward IV was still alive. Not only would he be faced with charges of throwing over a perfectly acceptable, legal wife (a Talbot, no less!), there'd be that little matter of him planning to foist a bastard off as his legitimate heir! However, as far as we know and while he was alive, no such opposition developed. Edward's actions were going against the very basis of English society and government and, although perhaps it's just me, I can't see such knowledge, if widespread, not causing all sorts of problems for Edward. Rumors, on the other hand, are something else again. For one thing, while it's entirely possible Edward wouldn't even be aware of them. it wouldn't necessarily mean that people such as George, Isabel, even Anne, didn't hear them, though. Having heard the rumors could certainly help explain George's actions after Isabel died, but I while can't say whether he heard them before or afterwards. I tend to think it was afterwards, but that's not set in stone. Nico concluded: As for the anointing, if the Woodvilles had managed to get the coronation done, it may have swayed enough council members to support EV, as they may have interpreted it as God's will. Even HT was uncomfortable about Lambert Simnel, believing that the coronation in Dublin gave him some sort of holy or priestly status. Doug here: While the anointing would have provided extra protection, so to speak; I'm now leaning towards the idea that it was the coronation itself the Woodvilles were after. In particular, a coronation that took place in the absence of the Protector, thus giving them time to reshuffle to Council with the likely intention of neutering Richard's authority. He might still be Protector, but the power would lie with the Woodville-dominated Council  and King. Perhaps it's just the cynic in me... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-14 11:48:04
ricard1an
I have read something online which suggests that maybe Stillington heard the confession of a dying priest who may have heard Eleanor's deathbed confession or could possibly have been the priest who married them. The only problem with them being married by a priest is that they did not have to have someone they could just say that they married one another and consumated the marriage afterwards.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 04:07:39
Doug Stamate
Hilary, In response to that bit in your last paragraph about Thomas Stanley  wouldn't he also have had a reason to support Richard because of the Greys? I'm presuming they were the Woodville Greys, and thus somewhat untouchable while Edward IV lived, or his son was on a throne propped up by his mother's relatives? I have to agree, whatever was Edward thinking putting Rivers in charge of his heir's up-bringing! I do wonder though, if much, or even most, of what happened was simply people reacting to events? This wouldn't mean there weren't motives behind courses taken, merely that those motives weren't the cause of the events. Doug Who, yet again, hopes that last makes sense! Hilary wrote: Nico re your bit about Yahoo, I've found that if I've sometimes read a post on my mobile and tried to come back to it it's been deleted as though it never was. Have even had to search the main forum website. Couple of small points to add to a very good discussion Firstly, Anthony is to me the ultimate poser - the expert jouster who is just always too busy to get his hands dirty. Imagine Richard in summer 1471 having been wounded at Barnet, fought at Tewkesbury and passed judgement on the Lancastrian leaders, being then sent to pursue Fauconberg because AW, who was originally requested to do so by Edward, was preparing to go on a pilgrimage. Did he go? No. Where was AW in Scotland - at least Percy was there? I think this is just another Victorian rendering of the persecuted poet. Hard - but that's how he grabs me. As well as the unlovely Dorset, and perhaps Buckingham, the one who could also have had a will to get rid of Hastings was Thomas Stanley. The Stanleys had steadily expanded their 'empire' for generations. It now rivaled that of the Staffords in the North West. The Hastings, Buckingham (Stafford) and to a lesser extent Grey empires were all impinging on Stanley ambitions. Anyone clever enough to take out both Hastings and Buckingham whilst getting them conveniently attainted was doing the Stanleys an immense good turn.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 04:44:31
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: //snip// Stanley is another interesting observation. Some sources say that Buckingham was also an intended target. Clearly it was Hastings who took the first steps to an overt act of treason, but who else was involved? Stanley certainly stood to benefit if Hastings, Buckingham and ultimately the Woodvilles were out of the picture. According to Grafton, Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him.'
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-infamous-cou  Doug here: I went to that link and found it interesting, but puzzling. The author wrote: ...even later Tudor chroniclers seem to concede (that) Lord Hastings was up to something behind Richard's back and provides as evidence the following from Vergil which occurred before Richard arrived in London: (Lord Hastings) called together unto Paul's church such such friends as he knew to be right careful for the life, dignity, and estate of Prince Edward, and conferred with them what best was to be done. Perhaps it's me, but I see nothing unusual about this. Until the announcement of the Pre-Contract, Richard was also doing all he could for the life, dignity, and estate of his nephew. IOW, I rather think this meeting was called, not to obstruct Richard, but rather to gather together non-Woodville supporters of Edward, most likely with the aim of supporting Richard against the Woodvilles in regards to any plans for a future government under Edward V. The citations from Grafton are, to say the least, strange. The author of the article says Grafton wrote that Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him but, once again, there's no time reference. Was this before Richard arrived in London? After Richard arrived, but before Stillington's announcement? Sometime after Stillington's announcement, but before 13 June? Because it seems to me that timing is everything, especially in this case. Do you, or anyone, know if we can date this? Aren't the charges against Hastings that Grafton reports Richard as saying to the London Aldermen the same, or nearly so, as the charges Richard included in his letter to York? Call me prejudiced, but unless we have at least one other source that supports it, I'm not putting any reliance on that excerpt from More. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 05:02:56
Doug Stamate
Nico, If I understand correctly, there's nothing definite about who informed Richard about his brother's death, or when. Needless to say, that hasn't stopped me! Seriously though, I always thought it was Hastings who informed Richard and that was based on Mancini's quoting the letter. B ut, as Carol pointed out, it's extremely unlikely that Mancini ever saw the letter, thus throwing serious doubts on his quotes from it. It is, of course, entirely possible Mancini, while asking around for information, was told, even possibly by a very reliable source, that a letter had been sent to Richard by Hastings, and he took it from there. It's obvious someone informed Richard and, presuming it wasn't Edward's widow, Hastings is as good a choice as any. It would be nice to nail this down, though. Doug Nico wrote: Re: The Hasting's Letter I thought that it was Hastings that informed Richard that EIV had died, and the EW had not informed him because she and the Woodvilles were playing for more time to rush EV's coronation. Is this just Mancini, and if incorrect how did Richard find out that EIV was dead if there was no letter from Hastings?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-15 06:53:46
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: I could see Morton envisaging something along these lines with a grand plan to unite various factions around Edward V, with himself in a very important position. If he thought that it was possible to manipulate the council and suppress the precontract story to achieve this, he may well have been involved in the Hastings plot. He may even have considered restoring EV, but I think the acceptance of the precontract may have changed the entire picture in terms of support, and Morton may have had to reconsider his candidate. I'm not convinced that Buckingham and Morton were on the same page in the early stages, because I can't see Buckingham having any interest in restoring EV. Initially, he supported Richard, but when that didn't work out he wanted the crown for himself. As you say, why should he lead a rebellion in favour of someone less entitled to the benefits than him? The most likely supporters for EV's restoration would have been Edwardian Yorkists like William Stanley and, of course, the Woodvilles. However, others may have been less enthusiastic about the illegitimate boy King, especiallly Lancastrians who had suffered losses under EIV. If the Talbots joined the rebellion, they would be most likely supporting Buckingham rather than the son of the EW, who had supplanted Eleanor as Queen. Some Lancastrians may also have felt bitter about the Woodvilles' success when they changed sides and prospered so much after EW's marriage (in some cases from of some of the Lancastrian families losses). Since, they didn't have anything to gain from Richard, they may seen Buckingham could be a fresh start. Actually, I can see Morton himself thinking along these lines, as well as MB and Reggie Bray. As far as I know, Bray and his family didn't benefit at all from EIV, something of a demotion from the days when his father was one of Henry VI's doctors. FWIW, Bray had served the Stafford family for some time and carried messages between Morton and Buckingham. MB appears to have thought highly of him, and since he worked closely with her, he had plenty of time to convince her to join Buckingham's cause, that is if she needed persuading at all. Nevertheless, as you say, a rebellion that had to change its focus was a logistical nightmare. Doug here: FWIW, it appears to me that, until the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, Morton's aim was to re-instate Edward V. Morton had already been involved in one plot to kill Richard and keep Edward V on the throne; a plot that cost Hastings his life. Morton's involvement in a second plot aiming to to re-instate Edward would, or so it seems to me, make more sense than plotting to replace Richard with Buckingham. All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate. And then there'd be Margaret Beaufort and Morton, both well-known Lancastrians, to soothe any doubts. To be successful, any rebellion against Richard would, by necessity, have to be as encompassing as possible. Thus, to draw in any discontented supporters of Edward IV, Edward would be represented as the true Yorkist heir while, to any Lancastrians being wooed, he would not only be a member of a family well-established as Lancastrian and blessed by two more well-known, and influential, Lancastrians, Margaret Beaufort and Morton but, to top it off, he was supported by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, not only of royal blood, but also from yet another well-known Lancastrian family. OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged. Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke! Then I think, one of two things happened. Buckingham either so demonstrated his incompetence that Morton took fright and fled or Buckingham got the idea of diverting the rebellion from Edward V to himself and Morton put as much distance as he could between himself and the approaching disaster he foresaw. Nico concluded:The 'rescue attempt' may have been as early as late July, and MB and EW may already have been plotting, and all within a month of MB having the honour of carrying Queen Anne's train at her coronation. Tacky, absolutely! Treacherous too, and this is another reason why I believe that MB may have been using the EW and the Woodvilles to ensure HT's return if EV ever did get his crown back, while her actual preference was Buckingham as soon as he could be enticed into the rebellion. What the intended purpose of the rescue' was is open to debate, but since Welles was involved, could Morton and MB have been planning to take the boys into their custody? Doug here: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit? If Welles was working for Margaret Beaufort, harming them wouldn't help get Henry back; it would, most likely, just make it that much harder. It may be me, but I can't think of anything Morton had to gain by the boys' deaths; at least not at that point. Of course, if Buckingham was aiming at the throne all along, then he could have had a reason. But, and presuming he was in on the rebellion from the beginning (or very near it), it would mean he'd be double-crossing everyone he was involved with! Nor would it explain why Welles was willing to even try to do such a thing  he worked for Margaret Beaufort, didn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 10:00:58
Nicholas Brown
Hi Doug,
You are right about timing being really important here. I assumed Matthew Lewis was referring to a date very close to the council meeting on June 13, however it is difficult to say without checking the original source. Here is a link to the relevant section of Grafton chronicle:
Grafton isn't contemporary (1563), but early enough for the author to have some insightful second hand information. As for the More excerpt, I don't attach much credibility to that account either.
Nico

Grafton's chronicle : or, History of England. To which is added his table of the bailiffs, sherrifs, and mayors, of the city of London. From the year 1189 to 1558, inclusive

Grafton's chronicle : or, History of England. To which is added his tabl...




On Monday, 15 January 2018, 04:44:36 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: //snip// Stanley is another interesting observation. Some sources say that Buckingham was also an intended target. Clearly it was Hastings who took the first steps to an overt act of treason, but who else was involved? Stanley certainly stood to benefit if Hastings, Buckingham and ultimately the Woodvilles were out of the picture. According to Grafton, Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him.'
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-infamous-cou  Doug here: I went to that link and found it interesting, but puzzling. The author wrote: ...even later Tudor chroniclers seem to concede (that) Lord Hastings was up to something behind Richard's back and provides as evidence the following from Vergil which occurred before Richard arrived in London: (Lord Hastings) called together unto Paul's church such such friends as he knew to be right careful for the life, dignity, and estate of Prince Edward, and conferred with them what best was to be done. Perhaps it's me, but I see nothing unusual about this. Until the announcement of the Pre-Contract, Richard was also doing all he could for the life, dignity, and estate of his nephew. IOW, I rather think this meeting was called, not to obstruct Richard, but rather to gather together non-Woodville supporters of Edward, most likely with the aim of supporting Richard against the Woodvilles in regards to any plans for a future government under Edward V. The citations from Grafton are, to say the least, strange. The author of the article says Grafton wrote that Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him but, once again, there's no time reference. Was this before Richard arrived in London? After Richard arrived, but before Stillington's announcement? Sometime after Stillington's announcement, but before 13 June? Because it seems to me that timing is everything, especially in this case. Do you, or anyone, know if we can date this? Aren't the charges against Hastings that Grafton reports Richard as saying to the London Aldermen the same, or nearly so, as the charges Richard included in his letter to York? Call me prejudiced, but unless we have at least one other source that supports it, I'm not putting any reliance on that excerpt from More. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 10:37:27
Hilary Jones
I've done a bit more research of a practical nature this weekend. You may have to get your map out again Doug.
Necessity caused me to travel the A5 (Watling) from Lutterworth to Dunstable, where all parties would have all carried on to London in 1483. Now if we take Richard, as said before, his natural route from the A1 to the A5 would take him through Northampton. So that's fine. Rivers would have got on the A5 around the same place as me, or a bit north of me. Now Northampton, which lies just off the present M1, doesn't lie off the A5. To get to it Rivers (and Buck if coming from Mancetter) would have to have left it at Weedon and wound their way through rather tortuous country lanes and villages for 10 or so miles. If they were looking for an overnight stop it would have been far more logical had they carried straight on down the A5 for about another 5 miles to the market town of Towcester, which is even today still awash with old coaching inns.
So this says to me that this must have been a prior arranged meeting on the part of all and arranged amicably. Why amicably? Well I was reading Ross who, although relying on Croyland and Mancini, confirmed a number of things. Firstly no-one has found out where Buckingham was. Secondly, the Woodvilles wanted young Edward to be escorted by a large army, but Hastings advised against it - and they listened. So the contingent was about the same as Richard's. Ross has Hastings being deeply suspicious of the Woodvilles because he thought they would deprive him of his post of Captain of Calais. He who held Calais of course controlled the garrisons and mercenaries there, so Hastings was a real threat if he turned against them and favoured Richard. So who did alert Richard, Buckingham? Because if Richard had been alerted by Hastings in York he would surely have traveled with a bigger army? H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 04:44:36 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: //snip// Stanley is another interesting observation. Some sources say that Buckingham was also an intended target. Clearly it was Hastings who took the first steps to an overt act of treason, but who else was involved? Stanley certainly stood to benefit if Hastings, Buckingham and ultimately the Woodvilles were out of the picture. According to Grafton, Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him.'
https://mattlewisauthor.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-infamous-cou  Doug here: I went to that link and found it interesting, but puzzling. The author wrote: ...even later Tudor chroniclers seem to concede (that) Lord Hastings was up to something behind Richard's back and provides as evidence the following from Vergil which occurred before Richard arrived in London: (Lord Hastings) called together unto Paul's church such such friends as he knew to be right careful for the life, dignity, and estate of Prince Edward, and conferred with them what best was to be done. Perhaps it's me, but I see nothing unusual about this. Until the announcement of the Pre-Contract, Richard was also doing all he could for the life, dignity, and estate of his nephew. IOW, I rather think this meeting was called, not to obstruct Richard, but rather to gather together non-Woodville supporters of Edward, most likely with the aim of supporting Richard against the Woodvilles in regards to any plans for a future government under Edward V. The citations from Grafton are, to say the least, strange. The author of the article says Grafton wrote that Lord Stanley sent to him [Hastings] a trusty and secret messenger at midnight in all the haste, requiring him to rise and ride away with him but, once again, there's no time reference. Was this before Richard arrived in London? After Richard arrived, but before Stillington's announcement? Sometime after Stillington's announcement, but before 13 June? Because it seems to me that timing is everything, especially in this case. Do you, or anyone, know if we can date this? Aren't the charges against Hastings that Grafton reports Richard as saying to the London Aldermen the same, or nearly so, as the charges Richard included in his letter to York? Call me prejudiced, but unless we have at least one other source that supports it, I'm not putting any reliance on that excerpt from More. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 12:10:41
ricard1an
Doesn't the story about Hastings contacting Richard say that Hastings told Richard to bring 2000? men but Richard refused and only took 300 whereas Rivers had 2000 men? Buckingham is supposed to have only had 300 men too.
Mary

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

2018-01-15 12:25:38
Nicholas Brown
Doug: All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate.
Despite their Lancastrian allegiance before EW married E4, imho, by 1483, the Woodvilles would have lost all credibility as Lancastrians. The main link to the House of Lancaster was from the previous generation, the elder Richard Woodville and Jacquetta, and even they changed sides. I can't see how the younger generation could have possibly traded on it. Anthony Woodville had been a high profile figure during E4's reign; Richard jr (according to Cora Scofield) was pardoned for having previously fought for the Lancastrians, but appears to have been a low profile character; Lionel had benefitted considerably having been given a number of senior church appointments and made Bishop of Salisbury by E4. Edward and the Marquis of Dorset were younger and would have grown up during E4's reign and both appear to have been lightweights. The Woodvilles, as a group were never popular, had no power base of their own and without E4 or E5 were most likely expendable. Until the precontract was exposed the goose that was going to lay their golden eggs was E5, but once the E4/EW marriage was publicly discredited, the illegitimate E5 was a much less attractive prospect, and the I suspect that many Lancastrian rebels would have preferred to simply cast him and the Woodvilles aside. As for HT, I don't think anyone was considering him at this point, but if there was a general preference for Buckingham in the old Lancaster camp, Morton - whatever his allegiances before the precontract exposure - would have had to sail with the prevailing wind if it was blowing in Buckingham's direction. By this point though, he may have lost his enthusiasm for the rebellion because it looked almost certain to fall apart for lack of cohesion. If the Hastings plot had succeeded or it had been possible to manipulate the council into rejecting and suppressing the precontract, then I think Morton would have gone along with that, but once E5 was exposed as illegitimate, he simply wasn't a viable candidate anymore, as he didn't have any actual right to the throne.


Doug: OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged.. Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke!
I suspect that Buckingham didn't intend to offer anything to the Woodvilles or the Edwardian Yorkists, and the intention was to reinstate a House of Lancaster Mark II. Morton may have had to accept that you could never bring all these differing factions together. That is an interesting point about Stanley. Personally, I think he would have done the same as he did in 1485; hedge his bets and go with whatever suited him best. If the odds were in Buckingham's favour, then that is where you would find him.

Doug: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit?
The Tower rescue attempt is difficult because we know so little about it, but you are right that probably only Buckingham had anything to gain from them not surviving. I suspect it was Woodville driven, and I think I recall Edward Woodville being involved (but I can't be sure where I read this). They would have been the primary beneficiaries of a successful rescue attempt as it would give them control of the boy they were trying to put on the throne. MB may have been involved because she had been plotting with EW. Buckingham may not have emerged as an alternative candidate at this stage, which was in late July 1483.

Nico




On Monday, 15 January 2018, 06:54:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I could see Morton envisaging something along these lines with a grand plan to unite various factions around Edward V, with himself in a very important position. If he thought that it was possible to manipulate the council and suppress the precontract story to achieve this, he may well have been involved in the Hastings plot. He may even have considered restoring EV, but I think the acceptance of the precontract may have changed the entire picture in terms of support, and Morton may have had to reconsider his candidate. I'm not convinced that Buckingham and Morton were on the same page in the early stages, because I can't see Buckingham having any interest in restoring EV. Initially, he supported Richard, but when that didn't work out he wanted the crown for himself. As you say, why should he lead a rebellion in favour of someone less entitled to the benefits than him? The most likely supporters for EV's restoration would have been Edwardian Yorkists like William Stanley and, of course, the Woodvilles. However, others may have been less enthusiastic about the illegitimate boy King, especiallly Lancastrians who had suffered losses under EIV. If the Talbots joined the rebellion, they would be most likely supporting Buckingham rather than the son of the EW, who had supplanted Eleanor as Queen. Some Lancastrians may also have felt bitter about the Woodvilles' success when they changed sides and prospered so much after EW's marriage (in some cases from of some of the Lancastrian families losses). Since, they didn't have anything to gain from Richard, they may seen Buckingham could be a fresh start. Actually, I can see Morton himself thinking along these lines, as well as MB and Reggie Bray. As far as I know, Bray and his family didn't benefit at all from EIV, something of a demotion from the days when his father was one of Henry VI's doctors. FWIW, Bray had served the Stafford family for some time and carried messages between Morton and Buckingham. MB appears to have thought highly of him, and since he worked closely with her, he had plenty of time to convince her to join Buckingham's cause, that is if she needed persuading at all. Nevertheless, as you say, a rebellion that had to change its focus was a logistical nightmare. Doug here: FWIW, it appears to me that, until the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, Morton's aim was to re-instate Edward V. Morton had already been involved in one plot to kill Richard and keep Edward V on the throne; a plot that cost Hastings his life.. Morton's involvement in a second plot aiming to to re-instate Edward would, or so it seems to me, make more sense than plotting to replace Richard with Buckingham. All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate. And then there'd be Margaret Beaufort and Morton, both well-known Lancastrians, to soothe any doubts. To be successful, any rebellion against Richard would, by necessity, have to be as encompassing as possible. Thus, to draw in any discontented supporters of Edward IV, Edward would be represented as the true Yorkist heir while, to any Lancastrians being wooed, he would not only be a member of a family well-established as Lancastrian and blessed by two more well-known, and influential, Lancastrians, Margaret Beaufort and Morton but, to top it off, he was supported by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, not only of royal blood, but also from yet another well-known Lancastrian family. OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged.. Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke! Then I think, one of two things happened. Buckingham either so demonstrated his incompetence that Morton took fright and fled or Buckingham got the idea of diverting the rebellion from Edward V to himself and Morton put as much distance as he could between himself and the approaching disaster he foresaw. Nico concluded:The 'rescue attempt' may have been as early as late July, and MB and EW may already have been plotting, and all within a month of MB having the honour of carrying Queen Anne's train at her coronation. Tacky, absolutely! Treacherous too, and this is another reason why I believe that MB may have been using the EW and the Woodvilles to ensure HT's return if EV ever did get his crown back, while her actual preference was Buckingham as soon as he could be enticed into the rebellion. What the intended purpose of the rescue' was is open to debate, but since Welles was involved, could Morton and MB have been planning to take the boys into their custody? Doug here: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit? If Welles was working for Margaret Beaufort, harming them wouldn't help get Henry back; it would, most likely, just make it that much harder. It may be me, but I can't think of anything Morton had to gain by the boys' deaths; at least not at that point. Of course, if Buckingham was aiming at the throne all along, then he could have had a reason. But, and presuming he was in on the rebellion from the beginning (or very near it), it would mean he'd be double-crossing everyone he was involved with! Nor would it explain why Welles was willing to even try to do such a thing  he worked for Margaret Beaufort, didn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 12:45:24
Hilary Jones
Ross says (from Croyland) that the more prudent members of the Council called by the Woodvilles voted against EW's suggestion that the 'young king should come to London with a substantial army' and should bring 'no more than 2000 men'. Ross has this as the Chronicler's estimate of the size of a small army. When EW agreed Hastings was happy knowing that Buckingham and Richard 'could be relied upon' to bring something of at least that size. He doesn't know whether Hastings was an informant.
Ross does however claim that the Woodvilles did nothing wrong in calling the Council - that it was not illegal. Yet he seems to ignore the fact that Dowager Queens were not allowed to be guardians of the heir. One minute Richard is acting impeccably, the next he must have been a plotter. It's as though some of the most reputable historians of the last century - and I include Horrox and Carpenter as well, have been brainwashed into believing that Richard was bad. One minute they say everything was so disorganised he must have know nothing, in another they've got him as a schemer. Same really with Hastings. They just don't know where to go. But it has to go back to Richard being bad. H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 12:12:34 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doesn't the story about Hastings contacting Richard say that Hastings told Richard to bring 2000? men but Richard refused and only took 300 whereas Rivers had 2000 men? Buckingham is supposed to have only had 300 men too.


Mary

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

2018-01-15 12:48:58
Hilary Jones
What is odd about the Tower rescue is that the culprits weren't executed until early 1484. That would surely have given Richard a considerable amount of time to interrogate them? I just don't understand why we know so little. Or the evidence was 'lost' by the next regime for a convenient reason? H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 12:25:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug: All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate.
Despite their Lancastrian allegiance before EW married E4, imho, by 1483, the Woodvilles would have lost all credibility as Lancastrians. The main link to the House of Lancaster was from the previous generation, the elder Richard Woodville and Jacquetta, and even they changed sides. I can't see how the younger generation could have possibly traded on it. Anthony Woodville had been a high profile figure during E4's reign; Richard jr (according to Cora Scofield) was pardoned for having previously fought for the Lancastrians, but appears to have been a low profile character; Lionel had benefitted considerably having been given a number of senior church appointments and made Bishop of Salisbury by E4. Edward and the Marquis of Dorset were younger and would have grown up during E4's reign and both appear to have been lightweights. The Woodvilles, as a group were never popular, had no power base of their own and without E4 or E5 were most likely expendable. Until the precontract was exposed the goose that was going to lay their golden eggs was E5, but once the E4/EW marriage was publicly discredited, the illegitimate E5 was a much less attractive prospect, and the I suspect that many Lancastrian rebels would have preferred to simply cast him and the Woodvilles aside. As for HT, I don't think anyone was considering him at this point, but if there was a general preference for Buckingham in the old Lancaster camp, Morton - whatever his allegiances before the precontract exposure - would have had to sail with the prevailing wind if it was blowing in Buckingham's direction. By this point though, he may have lost his enthusiasm for the rebellion because it looked almost certain to fall apart for lack of cohesion. If the Hastings plot had succeeded or it had been possible to manipulate the council into rejecting and suppressing the precontract, then I think Morton would have gone along with that, but once E5 was exposed as illegitimate, he simply wasn't a viable candidate anymore, as he didn't have any actual right to the throne.


Doug: OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged... Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke!
I suspect that Buckingham didn't intend to offer anything to the Woodvilles or the Edwardian Yorkists, and the intention was to reinstate a House of Lancaster Mark II. Morton may have had to accept that you could never bring all these differing factions together. That is an interesting point about Stanley. Personally, I think he would have done the same as he did in 1485; hedge his bets and go with whatever suited him best. If the odds were in Buckingham's favour, then that is where you would find him.

Doug: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit?
The Tower rescue attempt is difficult because we know so little about it, but you are right that probably only Buckingham had anything to gain from them not surviving. I suspect it was Woodville driven, and I think I recall Edward Woodville being involved (but I can't be sure where I read this). They would have been the primary beneficiaries of a successful rescue attempt as it would give them control of the boy they were trying to put on the throne. MB may have been involved because she had been plotting with EW. Buckingham may not have emerged as an alternative candidate at this stage, which was in late July 1483.

Nico




On Monday, 15 January 2018, 06:54:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I could see Morton envisaging something along these lines with a grand plan to unite various factions around Edward V, with himself in a very important position. If he thought that it was possible to manipulate the council and suppress the precontract story to achieve this, he may well have been involved in the Hastings plot. He may even have considered restoring EV, but I think the acceptance of the precontract may have changed the entire picture in terms of support, and Morton may have had to reconsider his candidate. I'm not convinced that Buckingham and Morton were on the same page in the early stages, because I can't see Buckingham having any interest in restoring EV. Initially, he supported Richard, but when that didn't work out he wanted the crown for himself. As you say, why should he lead a rebellion in favour of someone less entitled to the benefits than him? The most likely supporters for EV's restoration would have been Edwardian Yorkists like William Stanley and, of course, the Woodvilles. However, others may have been less enthusiastic about the illegitimate boy King, especiallly Lancastrians who had suffered losses under EIV. If the Talbots joined the rebellion, they would be most likely supporting Buckingham rather than the son of the EW, who had supplanted Eleanor as Queen. Some Lancastrians may also have felt bitter about the Woodvilles' success when they changed sides and prospered so much after EW's marriage (in some cases from of some of the Lancastrian families losses). Since, they didn't have anything to gain from Richard, they may seen Buckingham could be a fresh start. Actually, I can see Morton himself thinking along these lines, as well as MB and Reggie Bray. As far as I know, Bray and his family didn't benefit at all from EIV, something of a demotion from the days when his father was one of Henry VI's doctors. FWIW, Bray had served the Stafford family for some time and carried messages between Morton and Buckingham. MB appears to have thought highly of him, and since he worked closely with her, he had plenty of time to convince her to join Buckingham's cause, that is if she needed persuading at all. Nevertheless, as you say, a rebellion that had to change its focus was a logistical nightmare. Doug here: FWIW, it appears to me that, until the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, Morton's aim was to re-instate Edward V. Morton had already been involved in one plot to kill Richard and keep Edward V on the throne; a plot that cost Hastings his life... Morton's involvement in a second plot aiming to to re-instate Edward would, or so it seems to me, make more sense than plotting to replace Richard with Buckingham. All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate. And then there'd be Margaret Beaufort and Morton, both well-known Lancastrians, to soothe any doubts. To be successful, any rebellion against Richard would, by necessity, have to be as encompassing as possible. Thus, to draw in any discontented supporters of Edward IV, Edward would be represented as the true Yorkist heir while, to any Lancastrians being wooed, he would not only be a member of a family well-established as Lancastrian and blessed by two more well-known, and influential, Lancastrians, Margaret Beaufort and Morton but, to top it off, he was supported by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, not only of royal blood, but also from yet another well-known Lancastrian family. OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged... Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke! Then I think, one of two things happened. Buckingham either so demonstrated his incompetence that Morton took fright and fled or Buckingham got the idea of diverting the rebellion from Edward V to himself and Morton put as much distance as he could between himself and the approaching disaster he foresaw. Nico concluded:The 'rescue attempt' may have been as early as late July, and MB and EW may already have been plotting, and all within a month of MB having the honour of carrying Queen Anne's train at her coronation. Tacky, absolutely! Treacherous too, and this is another reason why I believe that MB may have been using the EW and the Woodvilles to ensure HT's return if EV ever did get his crown back, while her actual preference was Buckingham as soon as he could be enticed into the rebellion. What the intended purpose of the rescue' was is open to debate, but since Welles was involved, could Morton and MB have been planning to take the boys into their custody? Doug here: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit? If Welles was working for Margaret Beaufort, harming them wouldn't help get Henry back; it would, most likely, just make it that much harder. It may be me, but I can't think of anything Morton had to gain by the boys' deaths; at least not at that point. Of course, if Buckingham was aiming at the throne all along, then he could have had a reason. But, and presuming he was in on the rebellion from the beginning (or very near it), it would mean he'd be double-crossing everyone he was involved with! Nor would it explain why Welles was willing to even try to do such a thing  he worked for Margaret Beaufort, didn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-15 14:33:15
ricard1an
It would be good to have a completely clean sheet and start again only using primary evidence, preferably researched by you and Marie and the Looking for Richard project! I suppose that isn't completely impossible, however, it would take quite a lot of time but at least it wouldn't be bogged down by the myths of the past.
Mary
Who would still like to come across a Tardis somewhere.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-16 10:14:38
Hilary Jones
I shall never know as much as Marie, Mary; that takes a lifetime but I do get annoyed when people churn out the same old stuff and charge £25 a book for it. H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 14:36:34 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It would be good to have a completely clean sheet and start again only using primary evidence, preferably researched by you and Marie and the Looking for Richard project! I suppose that isn't completely impossible, however, it would take quite a lot of time but at least it wouldn't be bogged down by the myths of the past.


Mary
Who would still like to come across a Tardis somewhere.

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

2018-01-16 10:35:20
Hilary Jones
Just a little bit more info I've scraped up on Buckingham.
Firstly, he had another title - Earl of Northampton - which he inherited from his grandfather and was reconfirmed by Edward in 1472/3. Wouldn't it be just like Buckingham to convene a meeting at the home of his 'earldom'? Suppose he'd gleaned some info on Woodville plans from his wife and thought that this was a marvellous opportunity for an expose with him as the sort of master magician who would immediately then be 'in' with Richard. And in fact it's very like the expose of Hastings. Where was Buckingham that day?
Secondly, as well as MB, don't forget Buckingham had two aunts who were married to Talbots. One was Joan Cheddar, who'd been married to his uncle Richard and went on to marry Eleanor's brother, Lord Lisle. She died in 1464 but would have been alive at the time of the Pre Contract, the other was his aunt Catherine, also now dead, who had been married to Eleanor's (half) nephew. She was around until 1475. She too would have been an adult at the time of the Pre Contract.
Finally, there was a college at Cambridge called Bokingham or Buckingham College. It was funded by the Buckinghams, but overseen by the abbot of Croyland. So both Buckingham and MB had more than a slight connection with Croyland. H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 12:25:56 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Doug: All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate.
Despite their Lancastrian allegiance before EW married E4, imho, by 1483, the Woodvilles would have lost all credibility as Lancastrians. The main link to the House of Lancaster was from the previous generation, the elder Richard Woodville and Jacquetta, and even they changed sides. I can't see how the younger generation could have possibly traded on it. Anthony Woodville had been a high profile figure during E4's reign; Richard jr (according to Cora Scofield) was pardoned for having previously fought for the Lancastrians, but appears to have been a low profile character; Lionel had benefitted considerably having been given a number of senior church appointments and made Bishop of Salisbury by E4. Edward and the Marquis of Dorset were younger and would have grown up during E4's reign and both appear to have been lightweights. The Woodvilles, as a group were never popular, had no power base of their own and without E4 or E5 were most likely expendable. Until the precontract was exposed the goose that was going to lay their golden eggs was E5, but once the E4/EW marriage was publicly discredited, the illegitimate E5 was a much less attractive prospect, and the I suspect that many Lancastrian rebels would have preferred to simply cast him and the Woodvilles aside. As for HT, I don't think anyone was considering him at this point, but if there was a general preference for Buckingham in the old Lancaster camp, Morton - whatever his allegiances before the precontract exposure - would have had to sail with the prevailing wind if it was blowing in Buckingham's direction. By this point though, he may have lost his enthusiasm for the rebellion because it looked almost certain to fall apart for lack of cohesion. If the Hastings plot had succeeded or it had been possible to manipulate the council into rejecting and suppressing the precontract, then I think Morton would have gone along with that, but once E5 was exposed as illegitimate, he simply wasn't a viable candidate anymore, as he didn't have any actual right to the throne.


Doug: OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged... Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke!
I suspect that Buckingham didn't intend to offer anything to the Woodvilles or the Edwardian Yorkists, and the intention was to reinstate a House of Lancaster Mark II. Morton may have had to accept that you could never bring all these differing factions together. That is an interesting point about Stanley. Personally, I think he would have done the same as he did in 1485; hedge his bets and go with whatever suited him best. If the odds were in Buckingham's favour, then that is where you would find him.

Doug: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit?
The Tower rescue attempt is difficult because we know so little about it, but you are right that probably only Buckingham had anything to gain from them not surviving. I suspect it was Woodville driven, and I think I recall Edward Woodville being involved (but I can't be sure where I read this). They would have been the primary beneficiaries of a successful rescue attempt as it would give them control of the boy they were trying to put on the throne. MB may have been involved because she had been plotting with EW. Buckingham may not have emerged as an alternative candidate at this stage, which was in late July 1483.

Nico




On Monday, 15 January 2018, 06:54:09 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: I could see Morton envisaging something along these lines with a grand plan to unite various factions around Edward V, with himself in a very important position. If he thought that it was possible to manipulate the council and suppress the precontract story to achieve this, he may well have been involved in the Hastings plot. He may even have considered restoring EV, but I think the acceptance of the precontract may have changed the entire picture in terms of support, and Morton may have had to reconsider his candidate. I'm not convinced that Buckingham and Morton were on the same page in the early stages, because I can't see Buckingham having any interest in restoring EV. Initially, he supported Richard, but when that didn't work out he wanted the crown for himself. As you say, why should he lead a rebellion in favour of someone less entitled to the benefits than him? The most likely supporters for EV's restoration would have been Edwardian Yorkists like William Stanley and, of course, the Woodvilles. However, others may have been less enthusiastic about the illegitimate boy King, especiallly Lancastrians who had suffered losses under EIV. If the Talbots joined the rebellion, they would be most likely supporting Buckingham rather than the son of the EW, who had supplanted Eleanor as Queen. Some Lancastrians may also have felt bitter about the Woodvilles' success when they changed sides and prospered so much after EW's marriage (in some cases from of some of the Lancastrian families losses). Since, they didn't have anything to gain from Richard, they may seen Buckingham could be a fresh start. Actually, I can see Morton himself thinking along these lines, as well as MB and Reggie Bray. As far as I know, Bray and his family didn't benefit at all from EIV, something of a demotion from the days when his father was one of Henry VI's doctors. FWIW, Bray had served the Stafford family for some time and carried messages between Morton and Buckingham. MB appears to have thought highly of him, and since he worked closely with her, he had plenty of time to convince her to join Buckingham's cause, that is if she needed persuading at all. Nevertheless, as you say, a rebellion that had to change its focus was a logistical nightmare. Doug here: FWIW, it appears to me that, until the failure of Buckingham's Rebellion, Morton's aim was to re-instate Edward V. Morton had already been involved in one plot to kill Richard and keep Edward V on the throne; a plot that cost Hastings his life... Morton's involvement in a second plot aiming to to re-instate Edward would, or so it seems to me, make more sense than plotting to replace Richard with Buckingham. All the groups you mentioned may have had issues with supporting a Yorkist king, but couldn't Elizabeth Woodville, and especially many of her relations, be considered Lancastrians? As much Lancastrian as Tudor, at any rate. And then there'd be Margaret Beaufort and Morton, both well-known Lancastrians, to soothe any doubts. To be successful, any rebellion against Richard would, by necessity, have to be as encompassing as possible. Thus, to draw in any discontented supporters of Edward IV, Edward would be represented as the true Yorkist heir while, to any Lancastrians being wooed, he would not only be a member of a family well-established as Lancastrian and blessed by two more well-known, and influential, Lancastrians, Margaret Beaufort and Morton but, to top it off, he was supported by Henry Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, not only of royal blood, but also from yet another well-known Lancastrian family. OTOH, what support could Buckingham expect from anyone? True, he did come from a family known for its' Lancastrian sympathies; but other than that? What did he have to offer the Woodvilles? Any non-Ricardian Yorkist? He might get Margaret Beaufort's support, but her husband's would be of greater value and getting his support wasn't likely. Then there's Morton. With Buckingham as king, Morton likely could look forward to the same sort of role he eventually did play under Henry Tudor. The question was: What were the odds of Buckingham ever becoming king? Which is why I fall back onto the idea that, at least originally, the idea of the rebellion was to restore Edward V, with Buckingham being substituted for Richard in the role of Protector. That role would put Buckingham smack dab in the center of everything. Which, or so it seems to me, is where he thought he belonged... Of course, he'd never have lasted long there, but I doubt that worried Morton. Buckingham's role, as I see it, was to be the front man for the rebellion, giving it an air of non-partisanship if you will. Supporters of Edward V, formeving Elizabr supporters of Edward IV, Lancastrians and even a Royal Duke! Then I think, one of two things happened. Buckingham either so demonstrated his incompetence that Morton took fright and fled or Buckingham got the idea of diverting the rebellion from Edward V to himself and Morton put as much distance as he could between himself and the approaching disaster he foresaw. Nico concluded:The 'rescue attempt' may have been as early as late July, and MB and EW may already have been plotting, and all within a month of MB having the honour of carrying Queen Anne's train at her coronation. Tacky, absolutely! Treacherous too, and this is another reason why I believe that MB may have been using the EW and the Woodvilles to ensure HT's return if EV ever did get his crown back, while her actual preference was Buckingham as soon as he could be enticed into the rebellion. What the intended purpose of the rescue' was is open to debate, but since Welles was involved, could Morton and MB have been planning to take the boys into their custody? Doug here: Offhand, I can think of three possible reasons for that attempt. The first was to free the boys as a preliminary to rebellion that would return Edward to his throne. FWIW, I think this is the most likely and would have been planned by Margaret Beaufort as part of a deal with Elizabeth Woodville. A second possibility might have been using them as some sort of bargaining chips with Richard, but I have trouble imagining any attempt to, say, exchange the boys for an unconditional return of HT, resulting in anything other than the bargainer, aka Margaret Beaufort, being clapped into the Tower. The last possibility is that the boys weren't supposed to survive their attempted escape. But the problem there is: Who would benefit? If Welles was working for Margaret Beaufort, harming them wouldn't help get Henry back; it would, most likely, just make it that much harder. It may be me, but I can't think of anything Morton had to gain by the boys' deaths; at least not at that point. Of course, if Buckingham was aiming at the throne all along, then he could have had a reason. But, and presuming he was in on the rebellion from the beginning (or very near it), it would mean he'd be double-crossing everyone he was involved with! Nor would it explain why Welles was willing to even try to do such a thing  he worked for Margaret Beaufort, didn't he? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-16 11:07:47
Nicholas Brown

Hilary, I think if you and Marie collaborated on a book it you could come up with something really original. I really have learned so much on this forum. By the way, you both did an excellent job of sorting out the Waytes.
Nico
On Tuesday, 16 January 2018, 10:15:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I shall never know as much as Marie, Mary; that takes a lifetime but I do get annoyed when people churn out the same old stuff and charge £25 a book for it. H
On Monday, 15 January 2018, 14:36:34 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

It would be good to have a completely clean sheet and start again only using primary evidence, preferably researched by you and Marie and the Looking for Richard project! I suppose that isn't completely impossible, however, it would take quite a lot of time but at least it wouldn't be bogged down by the myths of the past.


Mary
Who would still like to come across a Tardis somewhere.

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

2018-01-16 12:16:59
Nicholas Brown
Hilary, That is interesting about Buckingham's Earl of Northampton title. Presumably he would have had lands around there. I hadn't realized that he could have had a reason to be in Northampton or about the other connections to the Talbots and Croyland. Is there any info out there on his relationship with MB before 1483? As heir to the Stafford lands (with not many other Stafford relatives), Buckingham must have had some contact with Henry Stafford and MB - a childless couple who may have doted on a fatherless nephew.
As for the Tower rescue, is there a good account of what is known about it? Also, which people are known to have been involved and/or punished for it?
Nico

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

2018-01-16 13:49:06
Hilary Jones
Hi Nico, they are:
William Davy PardonerStephen Ireland Tower WardroberRobert Rushe Sarjeant of LondonJohn Smith Groom of the Stirrup
So looks like a bit of an inside job. They are very difficult to track down because, as Doug once said, they were probably servants - but of whom?
Buckingham held a lot of land virtually everywhere. I'll see if I can get his exact Northants holdings from one of his ancestor's IPM. I'm pretty sure from the 'King's Mother' book that MB visited Buckingham at least once and that he visited her in Guildford. I'll look it up.
Re your other post I'm still 'wayting' but I can only do it in bits as it turns your brain to scrambled eggs :) H
On Tuesday, 16 January 2018, 12:17:06 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, That is interesting about Buckingham's Earl of Northampton title. Presumably he would have had lands around there. I hadn't realized that he could have had a reason to be in Northampton or about the other connections to the Talbots and Croyland. Is there any info out there on his relationship with MB before 1483? As heir to the Stafford lands (with not many other Stafford relatives), Buckingham must have had some contact with Henry Stafford and MB - a childless couple who may have doted on a fatherless nephew.
As for the Tower rescue, is there a good account of what is known about it? Also, which people are known to have been involved and/or punished for it?
Nico

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

2018-01-16 16:07:00
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Despite their Lancastrian allegiance before EW married E4, imho, by 1483, the Woodvilles would have lost all credibility as Lancastrians. The main link to the House of Lancaster was from the previous generation, the elder Richard Woodville and Jacquetta, and even they changed sides. I can't see how the younger generation could have possibly traded on it. Anthony Woodville had been a high profile figure during E4's reign; Richard jr (according to Cora Scofield) was pardoned for having previously fought for the Lancastrians, but appears to have been a low profile character; Lionel had benefitted considerably having been given a number of senior church appointments and made Bishop of Salisbury by E4. Edward and the Marquis of Dorset were younger and would have grown up during E4's reign and both appear to have been lightweights. The Woodvilles, as a group were never popular, had no power base of their own and without E4 or E5 were most likely expendable. Until the precontract was exposed the goose that was going to lay their golden eggs was E5, but once the E4/EW marriage was publicly discredited, the illegitimate E5 was a much less attractive prospect, and the I suspect that many Lancastrian rebels would have preferred to simply cast him and the Woodvilles aside. As for HT, I don't think anyone was considering him at this point, but if there was a general preference for Buckingham in the old Lancaster camp, Morton - whatever his allegiances before the precontract exposure - would have had to sail with the prevailing wind if it was blowing in Buckingham's direction. By this point though, he may have lost his enthusiasm for the rebellion because it looked almost certain to fall apart for lack of cohesion. If the Hastings plot had succeeded or it had been possible to manipulate the council into rejecting and suppressing the precontract, then I think Morton would have gone along with that, but once E5 was exposed as illegitimate, he simply wasn't a viable candidate anymore, as he didn't have any actual right to the throne. Doug here: You've pointed out some very interesting problems the Woodvilles would face, but wouldn't Buckingham, particularly in regards to his Lancastrian credibility, have faced the same ones? The sticking point for me is that attempted rescue. Why, if the rebellion wasn't to re-instate Edward, was any attempt made to free the boys? If, from the beginning, the rebellion was to place Buckingham on the throne, why risk premature discovery of the plot by trying to free the boys? Once Richard had been defeated, obviously the most important item, the Tower would be under Buckingham's control and he could then release his nephews. That rescue attempt, to me anyway, only makes sense if the rebellion was intended to return Edward to the throne. And, again presuming the rebellion was successful and Edward was re-instated as king, the Pre-Contract could be treated, as it too often has since, as just an attempt by Richard to justify his taking the throne. We know how well that assertion has been received since Bosworth, why wouldn't it have met the same reception after whatever the battle was that would have defeated Richard in this scenario? I agree with you that the legitimacy issue is what likely encouraged Buckingham to consider himself a viable candidate; where we appear to differ is in whether Buckingham could have, from the beginning, been acceptable to enough people to give him a chance of defeating Richard. Buckingham would have to appeal to every group that Edward did. What could Buckingham as Henry VII offer the Woodvilles? That they didn't already have, that is? His claim of being a Lancastrian was as tarnished as his nephew's. He might have better luck with any supporters of Edward IV, discontented by their treatment by Richard, but how many of them were there and why should we expect him to have greater appeal that Edward IV's son? There was Margaret Beaufort, determined to have Henry back, but how many troops could she supply out of her affinity? Of course, she could provide cash to hire fighting men; but it would take time to round them up, especially without tipping anyone off about what was planned. If I recall correctly, when Henry Tudor did manage to get across the Channel, his troops consisted of 500 Bretons. A nice addition perhaps, but not, I think, a game changer. Then there's Morton's actions after departing Brecon. Seemingly, he met with either Margaret Beaufort or one of her confidantes, then continued on to Ely, finally heading to the Continent where he remained until after Bosworth. Interestingly, as best I can tell, nowhere he went did men come out in support of Buckingham. Strange, that. If Morton's departure from Brecon was to rouse the countryside, so to speak, then why didn't he? And if his departure didn't have that as its' aim, why did he leave Brecon? And the answer I get to both is that Morton, at the time of his leaving Brecon anyway, had determined the rebellion stood no chance of success. Which also tells me that, between the time the idea of the rebellion originated and the time when calls for mustering went out, something had changed. It may have been as simple as Morton recognizing there wasn't enough support and the rebellion would likely fail because of that lack. The other possibility is that Morton had agreed to participate in a rebellion with a certain aim, that aim had changed and, because of that change, the good Bishop realized the change had doomed the rebellion. The first is self-explanatory; the second, to me anyway, would only make sense if the original aim had been to put someone other than Buckingham on the throne. IOW, Edward V. There is, of course, a third possibility in that Morton, from the beginning, had absolutely no intention of getting involved in a rebellion, went along with Buckingham, whatever his aims were, and, as soon as possible, put as many miles as possible between himself and the Duke, warning Margaret Beaufort along the way to stay out of it. In this last case, Morton's goal would simply have been his freedom. After all our efforts trying to divine Morton's intentions, It'd be a hoot if that was the explanation! Nico continued: I suspect that Buckingham didn't intend to offer anything to the Woodvilles or the Edwardian Yorkists, and the intention was to reinstate a House of Lancaster Mark II. Morton may have had to accept that you could never bring all these differing factions together. That is an interesting point about Stanley. Personally, I think he would have done the same as he did in 1485; hedge his bets and go with whatever suited him best. If the odds were in Buckingham's favour, then that is where you would find him. Doug here: Again, was there enough support for a Lancastrian candidate, as a Lancastrian? When Tudor made his landing in 1485, as well as at Bosworth, his troops consisted mostly of mercenaries paid for the the French, along with a large number of Welsh auxiliaries. Where were his Lancastrian supporters? Perhaps Morton decamped because he, too, realized there was no way of getting all the groups needed for a successful rebellion together? It'd certainly simplify things.
Nico concluded: The Tower rescue attempt is difficult because we know so little about it, but you are right that probably only Buckingham had anything to gain from them not surviving. I suspect it was Woodville driven, and I think I recall Edward Woodville being involved (but I can't be sure where I read this). They would have been the primary beneficiaries of a successful rescue attempt as it would give them control of the boy they were trying to put on the throne. MB may have been involved because she had been plotting with EW. Buckingham may not have emerged as an alternative candidate at this stage, which was in late July 1483. Doug here: We know so little about it... That's the problem, isn't it? For myself, I guess it boils down to being able to come up with a reason for Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort coming to some sort of deal where, in exchange for Margaret's support in returning Edward to the throne, Henry would not only be allowed back into England, but would marry Edward's sister. I can also see Buckingham getting involved in that attempt because it would not only immediately validate his own self-importance as a Kingmaker, but also place him, however briefly, at the center of things. After that, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-17 16:31:44
Doug Stamate
Nico, I strolled through the link you provided, but couldn't find anything more definite, but I'll keep looking (I saved the link). I do have to admit I have a lot of trouble with unsourced statements and things such as as men say! Doug Nico wrote: You are right about timing being really important here. I assumed Matthew Lewis was referring to a date very close to the council meeting on June 13, however it is difficult to say without checking the original source. Here is a link to the relevant section of Grafton chronicle: Grafton isn't contemporary (1563), but early enough for the author to have some insightful second hand information. As for the More excerpt, I don't attach much credibility to that account either. Nico Grafton's chronicle : or, History of England. To which is added his table of the bailiffs, sherrifs, and mayors, of the city of London. From the year 1189 to 1558, inclusive 

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

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

2018-01-17 22:05:33
Nicholas Brown

Doug: You've pointed out some very interesting problems the Woodvilles would face, but wouldn't Buckingham, particularly in regards to his Lancastrian credibility, have faced the same ones? The sticking point for me is that attempted rescue. Why, if the rebellion wasn't to re-instate Edward, was any attempt made to free the boys? If, from the beginning, the rebellion was to place Buckingham on the throne, why risk premature discovery of the plot by trying to free the boys? Once Richard had been defeated, obviously the most important item, the Tower would be under Buckingham's control and he could then release his nephews. That rescue attempt, to me anyway, only makes sense if the rebellion was intended to return Edward to the throne.
Like the younger Woodvilles, Buckingham would have been too young to fight for the Lancastrians, but his mother was a Beaufort and he had a legal claim to throne (unlike Henry Tudor), and his fortunes hadn't been so enmeshed with the House of York in the same way as the Woodvilles. Therefore, I don't think that he would have damaged his credibility as a figure head for the House of Lancaster.

The rescue attempt - from what we can put together about it - raises questions about Buckingham. The intention to liberate the Princes does suggest to me that the motive was to take control over them to prepare for the restoration of Edward V. The fact that Tower servants answerable to Buckingham were executed for their involvement indicates that either Buckingham was involved or the Tower staff involved worked for or were bribed by the Woodvilles or someone else with a vested interest in E5's restoration. However, I think that the latter is more likely because if Buckingham was involved, he could have made the rescuers access easier, increasing the likelihood of success. I suspect that - at that stage - Buckingham was not yet involved a rebellion. If the rescue attempt was July 29th, he was probably in the early stages of discontent about his rewards from Richard, and was still considering his options whereas Margaret Beaufort appears to have begun plotting with Elizabeth Woodville, which was, at this stage, the best chance of ensuring Henry's return.

Doug: I agree with you that the legitimacy issue is what likely encouraged Buckingham to consider himself a viable candidate; where we appear to differ is in whether Buckingham could have, from the beginning, been acceptable to enough people to give him a chance of defeating Richard. Buckingham would have to appeal to every group that Edward did. What could Buckingham as Henry VII offer the Woodvilles?...Again, was there enough support for a Lancastrian candidate, as a Lancastrian? He might have better luck with any supporters of Edward IV, discontented by their treatment by Richard, but how many of them were there and why should we expect him to have greater appeal that Edward IV's son?.And the answer I get to both is that Morton, at the time of his leaving Brecon anyway, had determined the rebellion stood no chance of success. Which also tells me that, between the time the idea of the rebellion originated and the time when calls for mustering went out, something had changed.
This problem of raising support and ultimately troops may well be what finished the rebellion for all the factions. If they had been able to unite, they may have been able to raise enough, but neither the Woodvilles or Buckingham could do it on their own. I don't think that Buckingham had anything to offer the Woodvilles, as they would have settled for nobody, but Edward V. As for the Edwardian Yorkists, some may have supported E5, but other would be more likely to prefer the status quo with Richard. . So, I think Buckingham's main support base would be old Lancastrians and possibly other people with grievances (perhaps social ones). Neither side had any agenda beyond displacing Richard, so neither could muster the necessary backing, and any ideas of rebelling were doomed from both of them. Personally, I think that there was an initial Woodville plot for E5's restoration, which could have succeeded had they united a number of factions. The intention may have been for Buckingham to join with a Kingmaker role, but what changed was when Buckingham decided on his own separate rebellion. I think Morton knew that only failure could ensue and it would be best to abandon any ideas of a rebellion. He probably would have warned MB, but she still seems to have maintained some involvement.

Doug: There is, of course, a third possibility in that Morton, from the beginning, had absolutely no intention of getting involved in a rebellion, went along with Buckingham, whatever his aims were, and, as soon as possible, put as many miles as possible between himself and the Duke, warning Margaret Beaufort along the way to stay out of it. In this last case, Morton's goal would simply have been his freedom. After all our efforts trying to divine Morton's intentions, It'd be a hoot if that was the explanation!
You may be right about this and I had been wondering if we are making too many assumptions about Morton's involvement. He may indeed have not been involved in any of the plots, and we can't really pin him down with any of them. Richard put him in Buckingham's custody as he may have felt some reason not trust him, but there isn't any solid proof that he was conspiring with anyone. If he thought the rebellions were futile, he probably would have warned MB, but she seems to have maintained some involvement, as I don't think HT would have been planning to set sail to join the rebellion without her approval.
Nico









On Tuesday, 16 January 2018, 16:07:13 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Despite their Lancastrian allegiance before EW married E4, imho, by 1483, the Woodvilles would have lost all credibility as Lancastrians. The main link to the House of Lancaster was from the previous generation, the elder Richard Woodville and Jacquetta, and even they changed sides. I can't see how the younger generation could have possibly traded on it. Anthony Woodville had been a high profile figure during E4's reign; Richard jr (according to Cora Scofield) was pardoned for having previously fought for the Lancastrians, but appears to have been a low profile character; Lionel had benefitted considerably having been given a number of senior church appointments and made Bishop of Salisbury by E4. Edward and the Marquis of Dorset were younger and would have grown up during E4's reign and both appear to have been lightweights. The Woodvilles, as a group were never popular, had no power base of their own and without E4 or E5 were most likely expendable. Until the precontract was exposed the goose that was going to lay their golden eggs was E5, but once the E4/EW marriage was publicly discredited, the illegitimate E5 was a much less attractive prospect, and the I suspect that many Lancastrian rebels would have preferred to simply cast him and the Woodvilles aside. As for HT, I don't think anyone was considering him at this point, but if there was a general preference for Buckingham in the old Lancaster camp, Morton - whatever his allegiances before the precontract exposure - would have had to sail with the prevailing wind if it was blowing in Buckingham's direction. By this point though, he may have lost his enthusiasm for the rebellion because it looked almost certain to fall apart for lack of cohesion. If the Hastings plot had succeeded or it had been possible to manipulate the council into rejecting and suppressing the precontract, then I think Morton would have gone along with that, but once E5 was exposed as illegitimate, he simply wasn't a viable candidate anymore, as he didn't have any actual right to the throne. Doug here: You've pointed out some very interesting problems the Woodvilles would face, but wouldn't Buckingham, particularly in regards to his Lancastrian credibility, have faced the same ones? The sticking point for me is that attempted rescue. Why, if the rebellion wasn't to re-instate Edward, was any attempt made to free the boys? If, from the beginning, the rebellion was to place Buckingham on the throne, why risk premature discovery of the plot by trying to free the boys? Once Richard had been defeated, obviously the most important item, the Tower would be under Buckingham's control and he could then release his nephews. That rescue attempt, to me anyway, only makes sense if the rebellion was intended to return Edward to the throne. And, again presuming the rebellion was successful and Edward was re-instated as king, the Pre-Contract could be treated, as it too often has since, as just an attempt by Richard to justify his taking the throne. We know how well that assertion has been received since Bosworth, why wouldn't it have met the same reception after whatever the battle was that would have defeated Richard in this scenario? I agree with you that the legitimacy issue is what likely encouraged Buckingham to consider himself a viable candidate; where we appear to differ is in whether Buckingham could have, from the beginning, been acceptable to enough people to give him a chance of defeating Richard. Buckingham would have to appeal to every group that Edward did. What could Buckingham as Henry VII offer the Woodvilles? That they didn't already have, that is? His claim of being a Lancastrian was as tarnished as his nephew's. He might have better luck with any supporters of Edward IV, discontented by their treatment by Richard, but how many of them were there and why should we expect him to have greater appeal that Edward IV's son? There was Margaret Beaufort, determined to have Henry back, but how many troops could she supply out of her affinity? Of course, she could provide cash to hire fighting men; but it would take time to round them up, especially without tipping anyone off about what was planned. If I recall correctly, when Henry Tudor did manage to get across the Channel, his troops consisted of 500 Bretons. A nice addition perhaps, but not, I think, a game changer. Then there's Morton's actions after departing Brecon. Seemingly, he met with either Margaret Beaufort or one of her confidantes, then continued on to Ely, finally heading to the Continent where he remained until after Bosworth. Interestingly, as best I can tell, nowhere he went did men come out in support of Buckingham. Strange, that. If Morton's departure from Brecon was to rouse the countryside, so to speak, then why didn't he? And if his departure didn't have that as its' aim, why did he leave Brecon? And the answer I get to both is that Morton, at the time of his leaving Brecon anyway, had determined the rebellion stood no chance of success. Which also tells me that, between the time the idea of the rebellion originated and the time when calls for mustering went out, something had changed. It may have been as simple as Morton recognizing there wasn't enough support and the rebellion would likely fail because of that lack. The other possibility is that Morton had agreed to participate in a rebellion with a certain aim, that aim had changed and, because of that change, the good Bishop realized the change had doomed the rebellion. The first is self-explanatory; the second, to me anyway, would only make sense if the original aim had been to put someone other than Buckingham on the throne. IOW, Edward V. There is, of course, a third possibility in that Morton, from the beginning, had absolutely no intention of getting involved in a rebellion, went along with Buckingham, whatever his aims were, and, as soon as possible, put as many miles as possible between himself and the Duke, warning Margaret Beaufort along the way to stay out of it. In this last case, Morton's goal would simply have been his freedom. After all our efforts trying to divine Morton's intentions, It'd be a hoot if that was the explanation! Nico continued: I suspect that Buckingham didn't intend to offer anything to the Woodvilles or the Edwardian Yorkists, and the intention was to reinstate a House of Lancaster Mark II. Morton may have had to accept that you could never bring all these differing factions together. That is an interesting point about Stanley. Personally, I think he would have done the same as he did in 1485; hedge his bets and go with whatever suited him best. If the odds were in Buckingham's favour, then that is where you would find him. Doug here: Again, was there enough support for a Lancastrian candidate, as a Lancastrian? When Tudor made his landing in 1485, as well as at Bosworth, his troops consisted mostly of mercenaries paid for the the French, along with a large number of Welsh auxiliaries.. Where were his Lancastrian supporters? Perhaps Morton decamped because he, too, realized there was no way of getting all the groups needed for a successful rebellion together? It'd certainly simplify things.
Nico concluded: The Tower rescue attempt is difficult because we know so little about it, but you are right that probably only Buckingham had anything to gain from them not surviving. I suspect it was Woodville driven, and I think I recall Edward Woodville being involved (but I can't be sure where I read this). They would have been the primary beneficiaries of a successful rescue attempt as it would give them control of the boy they were trying to put on the throne. MB may have been involved because she had been plotting with EW. Buckingham may not have emerged as an alternative candidate at this stage, which was in late July 1483. Doug here: We know so little about it... That's the problem, isn't it? For myself, I guess it boils down to being able to come up with a reason for Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort coming to some sort of deal where, in exchange for Margaret's support in returning Edward to the throne, Henry would not only be allowed back into England, but would marry Edward's sister. I can also see Buckingham getting involved in that attempt because it would not only immediately validate his own self-importance as a Kingmaker, but also place him, however briefly, at the center of things. After that, though... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-17 22:12:15
nico11238
Thanks for that Hilary. Since they all appear to be connected to the Tower in some way, it does look like an inside job. At the time, Buckingham was constable, so they would have been answerable to him. That gives me some thoughts on other possibilities about his involvement. Which high profile people are known to have been involved? Somewhere I recall Edward Woodville and Lord Welles, but I can't remember where from. It is difficult to find a good source on this.
Nico

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-18 18:29:41
Nance Crawford
Been down with flu and then bronchitis and trying to catch up. Checked today's mail first and then backtracked. Now at Jan 9. Nico, good luck with trying to complain to Yahoo about their service. I've gotten no response at all while attempting to change to my current email address at other groups. Finally found out that a new invitation under the new address is the solution - problems: info now comes in at both addresses, which means a heck of a lot of holding down the delete button. Meanwhile, I seem to have missed the "rescue attempt" thread. Anybody know when the original query and response happened? Thanks. Meet Auntie N!
www.NanceCrawford.com

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-18 19:52:36
Nance Crawford

I’ve covered a good deal of the information discussed, lately. in "KING'S GAMES, A Memoir . . ." but haven't had the wherewithal to advertise, so it's not surprising they haven't been referenced here. Murray & Blue gave me my first, and lovely, review, but after four "5 Stars" on Amazon, it's dead as a doornail there - which isn't surprising, either.

Don't know if you'd be interested in my take on Eleanor, but it's also in "KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries" - which I broke out separately, for those who have no time or interest in a verse play, and people new to our subject. The bare facts of Eleanor's story made perfect sense to me in emotional and religious context.

Haven't brought this up earlier because I didn't want to annoy anyone with personal agenda - but the recent rains wiped out our roof and more rain is on the way, and, health or not, it's past time to be serious with my writing.

If you're interested in "KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries," get back to me in a private "Reply to Sender" (or a private Facebook message reminding me you're a member here at RiiiSF) with your name and mailing address. I can ship up to twenty single copies. It has not been reviewed separately on Amazon, and honest comments, even a sentence or two, will be very much appreciated. (I can't presently offer Kindle or Audible copies, although they are also available for "Commentaries.")

Self-published (and small publisher) writers without generous advertising budgets are ignored by Amazon until a book has amassed at least 50 - 60 honest reviews, at which point the book with be batched into their “If You Liked This, You Might Like That” offers, which can make all the difference.

All the help I can get will be very welcome, right now.

Thanks for your attention and patience.

N

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

2018-01-19 03:40:57
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Sorry to be so long in replying, you were right about having to get out the motoring atlas! However, I also went hunting on the internet and found this link: http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-royal-roads-of-early-england-part-i.html The first thing that popped into my mind was: Why was Rivers taking the road based on Watling Street, now (sort of) the A5? As Ludlow is located well south of Shrewsbury, why didn't Rivers head south to Gloucester, cross the Severn and then head east? The only reason I can come up with is that the road system, such as it was, left a large gap between Gloucester and points east. There was the Icknield Way, but it ran from, roughly, Cirencester northeastwards and not connecting to any London road until Dunstaple. Of course, if there wasn't any decent roadway going south from Ludlow to Gloucester, nor from Gloucester to the Icknield Way; then Rivers heading north, especially in springtime when quite a bit of rain could be expected, could have been considered the fastest and easiest way. Then I came across this map of the Roman roads: http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/aw_cuttings/images/q_roman_roads_fig_1.png The first thing I noticed was that the map wasn't correct, having Worcester listed as the western terminus of Watling Street when it should be Shrewsbury. The map also showed a Roman road going from Shrewsbury south to Caerlon and on to Gloucester where, seemingly, it connected with a road going to St.Albans. However, without knowing the state of that road connecting Shrewsbury and Caerlon, and again considering the time of year, heading north then southeast along relatively well-kept roads, especially if accompanied by 2,000 men would makes sense. Ok, so I've gotten Rivers leaving Ludlow for Shrewsbury in order to take Watling Street to London. There's no problem tying Buckingham in, presuming he was at Mancetter. In fact, Buckingham simply may have decided to ride along with them. As you say, though, Northampton isn't on Watling Street, so how to link Rivers and Buckingham up with Richard at Northampton/Stony Stratford? As you mentioned, it's about ten miles from the A 5/Watling Street to Northampton, so why would Rivers make such a detour? Perhaps logistics is the answer? If there were 2,000 men accompanying Edward and Rivers and another undetermined number accompanying Buckingham, unless they had wagons with supplies accompanying them, they'd need to stop and get more supplies somewhere, wouldn't they? A village just wouldn't have enough extra to supply so many. So, everyone loads on as much as they can carry on horseback at Ludlow, then at Shrewsbury they top up. Because from Shrewsbury to London, the only town is Northampton, where a final re-supply is planned before reaching London. There are towns listed in my atlas along the A 5, but how many were in existence in 1483? And even if they were in existence, were they towns or villages? Because a town would be the only place where enough provisions could be gotten. Could that explain Northampton? Yes, it was out of the way, but it held needed supplies. Getting Richard to Northampton was a bit harder but, if we look at logistics, perhaps there's an answer. According to the map in the first link, there was a road that ran more or less directly from York to Nottingham. There's a gap there, but the Icknield Way (Lincoln to Ilchester) wasn't that far away. And that road led to Leicester, where, again supplies could be gotten after riding, sort of, cross-country. Richard would now be faced with the options of continuing on the Icknield Way to where it connected with Watling Street, at High Cross I believe, or, again cutting across country, head for Northampton. Except, if this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Harborough#10661799 is correct, Richard wouldn't have had to go cross country as there was a road linking Leicester and Northampton. And Northampton would have been ideal for a final re-supply prior to finishing the trip to London, regardless of whether one came via Watling Street or from York. Does that make sense? Now that we have everyone in Northampton and its' environs, there's still the question of what happened there. Regardless of whether or not Richard was legally Protector at that point, he most definitely was Constable. Any plotting that might disturb the peace of the realm came under his purview and, although it may just be me, I rather think planning on hurriedly crowning an under-age king in order to stack the Royal Council with supporters just might qualify. I admit I've some difficulty in trying to figure out that bit about Edward being sent ahead to Stony Stratford. If, through sheer coincidence, Rivers, Buckingham and Richard were all at Northampton (or possibly even camped just outside it), what in Heaven's name was Edward doing over ten miles away? I can't recall if Richard ever met with his nephew before Rivers arrest. Did he? because if he didn't, then Edward being at Stony Stratford could be explained by his being there on the morning of 30 April, and not on 29 April. Did Rivers try and get Edward away from Richard by, say, starting him off very early on 30 April? And, of course, if during the night of 29/30 April, Buckingham, having discovered the Woodvilles' intentions of hurriedly crowning Edward, divulged that information to Richard, any attempt by Rivers to hurry Edward on towards London wouldn't, to say the least, look very good. A letter from Hastings has usually been given as the reason for Richard's actions and there very well may have been one. And if there was a letter from Hastings, then Northampton is the most likely place where Richard received that letter. Mainly because, had Richard received that letter while in York, why wasn't his journey south been, um, speedier? OTOH, considering that Richard was Constable, he had all the authority he needed to arrest Rivers, Scales and Vaughan until things were sorted out. Please feel free to tear this apart if I've gotten anything wrong! And my apologies for the delay and the length! Doug Hilary wrote: I've done a bit more research of a practical nature this weekend. You may have to get your map out again Doug. Necessity caused me to travel the A5 (Watling) from Lutterworth to Dunstable, where all parties would have all carried on to London in 1483. Now if we take Richard, as said before, his natural route from the A1 to the A5 would take him through Northampton. So that's fine. Rivers would have got on the A5 around the same place as me, or a bit north of me. Now Northampton, which lies just off the present M1, doesn't lie off the A5. To get to it Rivers (and Buck if coming from Mancetter) would have to have left it at Weedon and wound their way through rather tortuous country lanes and villages for 10 or so miles. If they were looking for an overnight stop it would have been far more logical had they carried straight on down the A5 for about another 5 miles to the market town of Towcester, which is even today still awash with old coaching inns. So this says to me that this must have been a prior arranged meeting on the part of all and arranged amicably. Why amicably? Well I was reading Ross who, although relying on Croyland and Mancini, confirmed a number of things. Firstly no-one has found out where Buckingham was. Secondly, the Woodvilles wanted young Edward to be escorted by a large army, but Hastings advised against it - and they listened. So the contingent was about the same as Richard's. Ross has Hastings being deeply suspicious of the Woodvilles because he thought they would deprive him of his post of Captain of Calais. He who held Calais of course controlled the garrisons and mercenaries there, so Hastings was a real threat if he turned against them and favoured Richard. So who did alert Richard, Buckingham? Because if Richard had been alerted by Hastings in York he would surely have traveled with a bigger army?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-19 04:33:07
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: Like the younger Woodvilles, Buckingham would have been too young to fight for the Lancastrians, but his mother was a Beaufort and he had a legal claim to throne (unlike Henry Tudor), and his fortunes hadn't been so enmeshed with the House of York in the same way as the Woodvilles. Therefore, I don't think that he would have damaged his credibility as a figure head for the House of Lancaster. Doug here: I really was wondering about any necessity to appeal to Lancastrians as a Lancastrian and not, say, a non-Yorkist? There may have been some around, but they certainly didn't show themselves in 1485! At least, not until after Bosworth... Nico continued: The rescue attempt - from what we can put together about it - raises questions about Buckingham. The intention to liberate the Princes does suggest to me that the motive was to take control over them to prepare for the restoration of Edward V. The fact that Tower servants answerable to Buckingham were executed for their involvement indicates that either Buckingham was involved or the Tower staff involved worked for or were bribed by the Woodvilles or someone else with a vested interest in E5's restoration. However, I think that the latter is more likely because if Buckingham was involved, he could have made the rescuers access easier, increasing the likelihood of success. I suspect that - at that stage - Buckingham was not yet involved a rebellion. If the rescue attempt was July 29th, he was probably in the early stages of discontent about his rewards from Richard, and was still considering his options whereas Margaret Beaufort appears to have begun plotting with Elizabeth Woodville, which was, at this stage, the best chance of ensuring Henry's return. Doug here: Those Tower servants answerable to Buckingham you refer to, are they the ones Hilary listed (Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith) or another group? Or did you mean answerable to Buckingham because he was Constable of the Tower? I rather tend to the idea of bribery, myself because, as you say, if Buckingham had been involved, it should have gone more smoothly. Nico continued: This problem of raising support and ultimately troops may well be what finished the rebellion for all the factions. If they had been able to unite, they may have been able to raise enough, but neither the Woodvilles or Buckingham could do it on their own. I don't think that Buckingham had anything to offer the Woodvilles, as they would have settled for nobody, but Edward V. As for the Edwardian Yorkists, some may have supported E5, but other would be more likely to prefer the status quo with Richard. . So, I think Buckingham's main support base would be old Lancastrians and possibly other people with grievances (perhaps social ones). Neither side had any agenda beyond displacing Richard, so neither could muster the necessary backing, and any ideas of rebelling were doomed from both of them. Personally, I think that there was an initial Woodville plot for E5's restoration, which could have succeeded had they united a number of factions. The intention may have been for Buckingham to join with a Kingmaker role, but what changed was when Buckingham decided on his own separate rebellion. I think Morton knew that only failure could ensue and it would be best to abandon any ideas of a rebellion. He probably would have warned MB, but she still seems to have maintained some involvement. Doug here: I think we're basically in agreement here. Only if all the various groups aimed at the same goal could they stand a chance. If Buckingham had decided to divert the rebellion to his own aims, that would have doomed it and would explain Morton's actions. There is the possibility, that Morton simply recognized that, even if Buckingham remained loyal, he was incapable of being the leader  with Morton responding in the same manner.
Nico concluded: You may be right about this and I had been wondering if we are making too many assumptions about Morton's involvement. He may indeed have not been involved in any of the plots, and we can't really pin him down with any of them. Richard put him in Buckingham's custody as he may have felt some reason not trust him, but there isn't any solid proof that he was conspiring with anyone. If he thought the rebellions were futile, he probably would have warned MB, but she seems to have maintained some involvement, as I don't think HT would have been planning to set sail to join the rebellion without her approval. Doug here: My understanding is that Morton had somehow been involved in the plot that cost Hastings his life and that was the reason for his being in Buckingham's custody. And, of course, if it had been Morton who'd tipped off Richard, that custody may have been more along the lines of protective than of restraint. Yes, unfortunately we don't have any proof Morton ever communicated with Margaret, only suspicions. And, of course, even if Morton did warn off Margaret, would she have had enough time to warn Henry? Seemingly, she didn't as he, eventually, showed up. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-19 04:55:07
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: What is odd about the Tower rescue is that the culprits weren't executed until early 1484. That would surely have given Richard a considerable amount of time to interrogate them? I just don't understand why we know so little. Or the evidence was 'lost' by the next regime for a convenient reason? Doug here: Wasn't early 1484 also when Margaret Beaufort's Attainder was passed? Carol's post containing what she had found of Margaret's Attainder said Margaret had ...conspired, confederated and committed high treason... and then went on to give some examples of what Margaret had done. But what if those examples weren't all-inclusive? Trying to free Edward and Richard would definitely come under conspired, confederated and committed, wouldn't it? I also find It interesting that Henry is charged with planning to make war against Richard, but not why. No charge that Henry was aiming at the throne, but if that was Henry's aim, no matter how ridiculous Richard may have thought it, why not say so? OTOH, if Henry's aim in making war against Richard was to re-instate Edward V, why be exact? Why needlessly remind people about the former king still being alive and a possible candidate for those dissatisfied, for whatever reason/s, with Richard? Sleeping dogs and all that. Those culprits directly involved in the attempt? They also had conspired, confederated and committed high treason, but they weren't married to Thomas, Lord Stanley... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-19 13:02:27
Hilary Jones
Doug - just rushing through! Re your first point about supplies in Northampton, the Romans had built Towcester (Lactodorum) as their supply post on the A5. Now I know time had moved on but ....
Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website

Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website

David Wilcock

Towcester and District Local History Society - Historic Towcester



Even if it hadn't had as many supplies as Northampton I would have thought it would have been easier for all three parties to meet and rest there, whilst sending a contingent to get supplies from Northampton. After all, Richard would have already have passed through it anyway (and probably Peterborough as well). You make some good points about the Rivers journey.
I'll be back later with response on rest. H (and even today Towcester is a bottleneck)

On Friday, 19 January 2018, 03:41:02 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary, Sorry to be so long in replying, you were right about having to get out the motoring atlas! However, I also went hunting on the internet and found this link: http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-royal-roads-of-early-england-part-i.html The first thing that popped into my mind was: Why was Rivers taking the road based on Watling Street, now (sort of) the A5? As Ludlow is located well south of Shrewsbury, why didn't Rivers head south to Gloucester, cross the Severn and then head east? The only reason I can come up with is that the road system, such as it was, left a large gap between Gloucester and points east. There was the Icknield Way, but it ran from, roughly, Cirencester northeastwards and not connecting to any London road until Dunstaple. Of course, if there wasn't any decent roadway going south from Ludlow to Gloucester, nor from Gloucester to the Icknield Way; then Rivers heading north, especially in springtime when quite a bit of rain could be expected, could have been considered the fastest and easiest way. Then I came across this map of the Roman roads: http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/aw_cuttings/images/q_roman_roads_fig_1.png The first thing I noticed was that the map wasn't correct, having Worcester listed as the western terminus of Watling Street when it should be Shrewsbury. The map also showed a Roman road going from Shrewsbury south to Caerlon and on to Gloucester where, seemingly, it connected with a road going to St.Albans. However, without knowing the state of that road connecting Shrewsbury and Caerlon, and again considering the time of year, heading north then southeast along relatively well-kept roads, especially if accompanied by 2,000 men would makes sense. Ok, so I've gotten Rivers leaving Ludlow for Shrewsbury in order to take Watling Street to London. There's no problem tying Buckingham in, presuming he was at Mancetter. In fact, Buckingham simply may have decided to ride along with them. As you say, though, Northampton isn't on Watling Street, so how to link Rivers and Buckingham up with Richard at Northampton/Stony Stratford? As you mentioned, it's about ten miles from the A 5/Watling Street to Northampton, so why would Rivers make such a detour? Perhaps logistics is the answer? If there were 2,000 men accompanying Edward and Rivers and another undetermined number accompanying Buckingham, unless they had wagons with supplies accompanying them, they'd need to stop and get more supplies somewhere, wouldn't they? A village just wouldn't have enough extra to supply so many. So, everyone loads on as much as they can carry on horseback at Ludlow, then at Shrewsbury they top up. Because from Shrewsbury to London, the only town is Northampton, where a final re-supply is planned before reaching London. There are towns listed in my atlas along the A 5, but how many were in existence in 1483? And even if they were in existence, were they towns or villages? Because a town would be the only place where enough provisions could be gotten. Could that explain Northampton? Yes, it was out of the way, but it held needed supplies. Getting Richard to Northampton was a bit harder but, if we look at logistics, perhaps there's an answer. According to the map in the first link, there was a road that ran more or less directly from York to Nottingham. There's a gap there, but the Icknield Way (Lincoln to Ilchester) wasn't that far away. And that road led to Leicester, where, again supplies could be gotten after riding, sort of, cross-country. Richard would now be faced with the options of continuing on the Icknield Way to where it connected with Watling Street, at High Cross I believe, or, again cutting across country, head for Northampton. Except, if this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_Harborough#10661799 is correct, Richard wouldn't have had to go cross country as there was a road linking Leicester and Northampton. And Northampton would have been ideal for a final re-supply prior to finishing the trip to London, regardless of whether one came via Watling Street or from York. Does that make sense? Now that we have everyone in Northampton and its' environs, there's still the question of what happened there. Regardless of whether or not Richard was legally Protector at that point, he most definitely was Constable. Any plotting that might disturb the peace of the realm came under his purview and, although it may just be me, I rather think planning on hurriedly crowning an under-age king in order to stack the Royal Council with supporters just might qualify. I admit I've some difficulty in trying to figure out that bit about Edward being sent ahead to Stony Stratford. If, through sheer coincidence, Rivers, Buckingham and Richard were all at Northampton (or possibly even camped just outside it), what in Heaven's name was Edward doing over ten miles away? I can't recall if Richard ever met with his nephew before Rivers arrest. Did he? because if he didn't, then Edward being at Stony Stratford could be explained by his being there on the morning of 30 April, and not on 29 April. Did Rivers try and get Edward away from Richard by, say, starting him off very early on 30 April? And, of course, if during the night of 29/30 April, Buckingham, having discovered the Woodvilles' intentions of hurriedly crowning Edward, divulged that information to Richard, any attempt by Rivers to hurry Edward on towards London wouldn't, to say the least, look very good. A letter from Hastings has usually been given as the reason for Richard's actions and there very well may have been one. And if there was a letter from Hastings, then Northampton is the most likely place where Richard received that letter. Mainly because, had Richard received that letter while in York, why wasn't his journey south been, um, speedier? OTOH, considering that Richard was Constable, he had all the authority he needed to arrest Rivers, Scales and Vaughan until things were sorted out. Please feel free to tear this apart if I've gotten anything wrong! And my apologies for the delay and the length! Doug Hilary wrote: I've done a bit more research of a practical nature this weekend. You may have to get your map out again Doug. Necessity caused me to travel the A5 (Watling) from Lutterworth to Dunstable, where all parties would have all carried on to London in 1483. Now if we take Richard, as said before, his natural route from the A1 to the A5 would take him through Northampton. So that's fine. Rivers would have got on the A5 around the same place as me, or a bit north of me. Now Northampton, which lies just off the present M1, doesn't lie off the A5. To get to it Rivers (and Buck if coming from Mancetter) would have to have left it at Weedon and wound their way through rather tortuous country lanes and villages for 10 or so miles. If they were looking for an overnight stop it would have been far more logical had they carried straight on down the A5 for about another 5 miles to the market town of Towcester, which is even today still awash with old coaching inns. So this says to me that this must have been a prior arranged meeting on the part of all and arranged amicably. Why amicably? Well I was reading Ross who, although relying on Croyland and Mancini, confirmed a number of things. Firstly no-one has found out where Buckingham was. Secondly, the Woodvilles wanted young Edward to be escorted by a large army, but Hastings advised against it - and they listened. So the contingent was about the same as Richard's. Ross has Hastings being deeply suspicious of the Woodvilles because he thought they would deprive him of his post of Captain of Calais. He who held Calais of course controlled the garrisons and mercenaries there, so Hastings was a real threat if he turned against them and favoured Richard. So who did alert Richard, Buckingham? Because if Richard had been alerted by Hastings in York he would surely have traveled with a bigger army?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-19 16:46:05
Doug Stamate
Hilary,
Thanks for that link, but it's a pity it doesn't have much information about Towcester's population.
I've searched, but I can't find anything relating to the populations of Towcester and Northampton during this period.
However, as Northampton was one of the major towns in the country during the preceding two centuries or so, I went for it, presuming it to have a larger population than Towcester. The Wikipedia article for Northampton had its' population at 3300 in the late 14th century.
My reasoning was that the larger the town, the more likely it would have the necessary supplies in sufficient amounts. Horses could be fed in any convenient village field/pasture, but 2,000 men would require quite a bit of meat, bread and, most likely, ale/wine. Then we have to add in another 400-600 men with Richard and Buckingham. I seriously doubt Northampton was growing by leaps and bounds during the 15th century, but it could still be expected that it was of sufficient size to accommodate an influx of nearly 3,000. At least for one night, anyway. Wasn't there a battle there at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses? II f so, does anyone have any knowledge of the size of Northampton then?
I admit I hadn't thought of Rivers and Buckingham camping at/near Towcester and having supplies brought out, is certainly very possible. The only limitation I can think of would be that all the supplies would likely have to be brought by horseback. So either the horses would have to carry both a rider and a load of supplies, or else there were enough pack animals available to be loaded themselves. In either case, there'd be the time element. First round up those who were going into Northampton to get the supplies. Then ride into Northampton. Then dicker with those who have the supplies you want, with cash on the barrelhead the most likely payment terms. Then load up the horses. Then return to the camp/s at/near Towcester, unload the horses and settle in for the night. OTOH, if everyone goes to Northampton, then the time consumed by those to/from trips is eliminated. And Rivers could sleep in a (semi)decent bed.
Anyway, those were the reasons I opted for Northampton rather than Towcester.
Doug
(Who is never, ever mistaken in his facts or reasoning!)
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Doug - just rushing through! Re your first point about supplies in Northampton, the Romans had built Towcester (Lactodorum) as their supply post on the A5. Now I know time had moved on but ....

Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website


Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website
David Wilcock

Towcester and District Local History Society - Historic Towcester






Even if it hadn't had as many supplies as Northampton I would have thought it would have been easier for all three parties to meet and rest there, whilst sending a contingent to get supplies from Northampton. After all, Richard would have already have passed through it anyway (and probably Peterborough as well). You make some good points about the Rivers journey.
I'll be back later with response on rest. H (and even today Towcester is a bottleneck).




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



Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-20 13:14:53
Nicholas Brown
Hi Nance,
I hope your feeling better. I came down with something nasty at the beginning of the year and I'm way behind on everything too. All sorts of things seem to be going around rather severely this year.
I'm not sure that the rescue attempt was a separate thread, but it appeared in several discussions about Buckingham.
I would be very interested in King's Games, both the memoir and the commentaries. How much would the cost be?
Nico






On Thursday, 18 January 2018, 19:53:41 GMT, 'Nance Crawford' Nance@... [] <> wrote:

I've covered a good deal of the information discussed, lately. in "KING'S GAMES, A Memoir . . ." but haven't had the wherewithal to advertise, so it's not surprising they haven't been referenced here. Murray & Blue gave me my first, and lovely, review, but after four "5 Stars" on Amazon, it's dead as a doornail there - which isn't surprising, either.

Don't know if you'd be interested in my take on Eleanor, but it's also in "KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries" - which I broke out separately, for those who have no time or interest in a verse play, and people new to our subject. The bare facts of Eleanor's story made perfect sense to me in emotional and religious context.

Haven't brought this up earlier because I didn't want to annoy anyone with personal agenda - but the recent rains wiped out our roof and more rain is on the way, and, health or not, it's past time to be serious with my writing.

If you're interested in "KING'S GAMES, The Commentaries," get back to me in a private "Reply to Sender" (or a private Facebook message reminding me you're a member here at RiiiSF) with your name and mailing address. I can ship up to twenty single copies. It has not been reviewed separately on Amazon, and honest comments, even a sentence or two, will be very much appreciated. (I can't presently offer Kindle or Audible copies, although they are also available for "Commentaries.")

Self-published (and small publisher) writers without generous advertising budgets are ignored by Amazon until a book has amassed at least 50 - 60 honest reviews, at which point the book with be batched into their If You Liked This, You Might Like That offers, which can make all the difference.

All the help I can get will be very welcome, right now.

Thanks for your attention and patience.

N

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

2018-01-20 14:27:12
Nicholas Brown

.
There is the possibility, that Morton simply recognized that, even if Buckingham remained loyal, he was incapable of being the leader  with Morton responding in the same manner

Doug: I really was wondering about any necessity to appeal to Lancastrians as a Lancastrian and not, say, a non-Yorkist?
While the 'House of Lancaster' had been quiet and essentially finished after Tewkesbury, there still may have been some Lancastrian families whose fortunes had declined or stagnated under Edward IV, and as a result felt a combination of resentment towards the new regime as well as nostalgia for the old. Buckingham may have had the idea of exploiting that discontent. Reggie Bray may have fallen into that category and possibly Morton. Margaret Beaufort may even retained some Lancastrian loyalties that made her vulnerable to manipulation. I'm particularly confused about her motivations, as she was doing so well having married Stanley, who had a strong Yorkist allegiance. I would have thought she would have been happy about that other than not being able to bring Henry back, so maybe I have overestimated her backing for Buckingham. Maybe she would have been content with E5 giving HT a prominent position and marrying EofY, but I would put it past her to court Buckingham too. I think that playing both sides may have been something she and Thomas Stanley had in common.
Doug: Those Tower servants answerable to Buckingham you refer to, are they the ones Hilary listed (Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith) or another group? Or did you mean answerable to Buckingham because he was Constable of the Tower?
As for the Tower Servants, Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith being answerable to Buckingham, I did mean with respect to him being Constable, as I would he would have ultimate authority over anyone who worked there. He may not have any personal dealings with them and I strongly suspect that they may have been bribed either someone working for the Woodvilles or Margaret Beaufort.
Doug: There is the possibility, that Morton simply recognized that, even if Buckingham remained loyal, he was incapable of being the leader  with Morton responding in the same manner
Since there isn't any actual proof of what Buckingham's intention was, that does leave the possibility that Morton may have thought that he wasn't capable of leading or taking on a 'Kingmaker' role, and that was what changed and made him think that the rebellion was doomed. However, personally I do get the impression that Buckingham was all for himself.

Doug: There is the possibility, that Morton simply recognized that, even if Buckingham remained loyal, he was incapable of being the leader  with Morton responding in the same manner.If it was Morton who tipped off Richard about the Hastings plot, the custody with Buckingham may have been protective. I wouldn't put it past him to have given the plot away, as I don't see him as a natural ally of either Hastings or the Woodvilles. Alternatively, Richard may just have been unsure about him, especially given his former loyalty to MoA and E4 not promoting him to especially prominent positions. Alcock was appointed to E5's council, but not him, so I could understand if there was a natural resentment between Morton, Hastings and the Woodvilles and little reason for Morton to join an uneasy pact between people who may have been acting out of desperation to cling onto whatever they could.
Earlier this week, I bought a copy of Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion by Louise Gill, which is the only book that I know of that specializes on Buckingham. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I hope it can give some new insight into what motivated the various parties. There is one copy left on AmazonUK for 75p.
Nico


On Friday, 19 January 2018, 04:33:12 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: Like the younger Woodvilles, Buckingham would have been too young to fight for the Lancastrians, but his mother was a Beaufort and he had a legal claim to throne (unlike Henry Tudor), and his fortunes hadn't been so enmeshed with the House of York in the same way as the Woodvilles. Therefore, I don't think that he would have damaged his credibility as a figure head for the House of Lancaster. Doug here: I really was wondering about any necessity to appeal to Lancastrians as a Lancastrian and not, say, a non-Yorkist? There may have been some around, but they certainly didn't show themselves in 1485! At least, not until after Bosworth... Nico continued: The rescue attempt - from what we can put together about it - raises questions about Buckingham. The intention to liberate the Princes does suggest to me that the motive was to take control over them to prepare for the restoration of Edward V. The fact that Tower servants answerable to Buckingham were executed for their involvement indicates that either Buckingham was involved or the Tower staff involved worked for or were bribed by the Woodvilles or someone else with a vested interest in E5's restoration. However, I think that the latter is more likely because if Buckingham was involved, he could have made the rescuers access easier, increasing the likelihood of success. I suspect that - at that stage - Buckingham was not yet involved a rebellion. If the rescue attempt was July 29th, he was probably in the early stages of discontent about his rewards from Richard, and was still considering his options whereas Margaret Beaufort appears to have begun plotting with Elizabeth Woodville, which was, at this stage, the best chance of ensuring Henry's return. Doug here: Those Tower servants answerable to Buckingham you refer to, are they the ones Hilary listed (Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith) or another group? Or did you mean answerable to Buckingham because he was Constable of the Tower? I rather tend to the idea of bribery, myself because, as you say, if Buckingham had been involved, it should have gone more smoothly. Nico continued: This problem of raising support and ultimately troops may well be what finished the rebellion for all the factions. If they had been able to unite, they may have been able to raise enough, but neither the Woodvilles or Buckingham could do it on their own. I don't think that Buckingham had anything to offer the Woodvilles, as they would have settled for nobody, but Edward V. As for the Edwardian Yorkists, some may have supported E5, but other would be more likely to prefer the status quo with Richard. . So, I think Buckingham's main support base would be old Lancastrians and possibly other people with grievances (perhaps social ones). Neither side had any agenda beyond displacing Richard, so neither could muster the necessary backing, and any ideas of rebelling were doomed from both of them. Personally, I think that there was an initial Woodville plot for E5's restoration, which could have succeeded had they united a number of factions. The intention may have been for Buckingham to join with a Kingmaker role, but what changed was when Buckingham decided on his own separate rebellion. I think Morton knew that only failure could ensue and it would be best to abandon any ideas of a rebellion. He probably would have warned MB, but she still seems to have maintained some involvement. Doug here: I think we're basically in agreement here. Only if all the various groups aimed at the same goal could they stand a chance. If Buckingham had decided to divert the rebellion to his own aims, that would have doomed it and would explain Morton's actions. There is the possibility, that Morton simply recognized that, even if Buckingham remained loyal, he was incapable of being the leader  with Morton responding in the same manner.
Nico concluded: You may be right about this and I had been wondering if we are making too many assumptions about Morton's involvement. He may indeed have not been involved in any of the plots, and we can't really pin him down with any of them. Richard put him in Buckingham's custody as he may have felt some reason not trust him, but there isn't any solid proof that he was conspiring with anyone. If he thought the rebellions were futile, he probably would have warned MB, but she seems to have maintained some involvement, as I don't think HT would have been planning to set sail to join the rebellion without her approval. Doug here: My understanding is that Morton had somehow been involved in the plot that cost Hastings his life and that was the reason for his being in Buckingham's custody. And, of course, if it had been Morton who'd tipped off Richard, that custody may have been more along the lines of protective than of restraint. Yes, unfortunately we don't have any proof Morton ever communicated with Margaret, only suspicions. And, of course, even if Morton did warn off Margaret, would she have had enough time to warn Henry? Seemingly, she didn't as he, eventually, showed up. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-20 16:23:41
justcarol67

Nico wrote:

I thought that it was Hastings that informed Richard that EIV had died, and the EW had not informed him because she and the Woodvilles were playing for more time to rush EV's coronation. Is this just Mancini, and if incorrect how did Richard find out that EIV was dead if there was no letter from Hastings?
Carol responds:

I'm not saying that there was definitely no letter from Hastings, only that Croyland doesn't mention it and Mancini could not possibly have known its contents as he pretends. Hastings does seem the most likely person to write the letter as he was (according to Croyland) concerned about Woodville manipulation of the council, but it could have been Russell or someone else who believed strongly that Richard's presence as Protector was sorely needed. None of the correspondence from that time has been preserved, so far as we know, so much of what happened is guesswork.

Someone needs to sit down and compare the accounts of Croyland and Mancini point by point (ignoring the supposed *contents* of imaginary letters and imaginary conversations) to see exactly where they agree and disagree and what appears in one account but not the other. In the case of contradictions, we'd at least know that one or the other is wrong!

Carol

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

2018-01-20 17:54:07
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Just a little bit more info I've scraped up on Buckingham. Firstly, he had another title - Earl of Northampton - which he inherited from his grandfather and was reconfirmed by Edward in 1472/3. Wouldn't it be just like Buckingham to convene a meeting at the home of his 'earldom'? Suppose he'd gleaned some info on Woodville plans from his wife and thought that this was a marvellous opportunity for an expose with him as the sort of master magician who would immediately then be 'in' with Richard. And in fact it's very like the expose of Hastings. Where was Buckingham that day? Doug here: Besides Buckingham's title, there's also the fact that Northampton had been the site of more than a dozen Parliaments and even briefly had a university from 1261 to 1265. The problem I see with Buckingham getting any information from his wife is: Where, even more importantly, when would she have gotten that information? Which is why I plumped for Buckingham possibly discovering the Woodville's intentions for a rushed coronation while accompanying Rivers, then passing that information on when he met Richard. What do you, or anyone else, think of the idea that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan might have been arrested for trying to prevent Richard, Constable of England, from, not seeing the new king, but for disputing Richard's right to take custody of his nephew? After all, Rivers may have been given the guardianship of the Prince of Wales, but that position no longer existed, did it? OTOH, Richard had been designated Constable of England as a life-time grant. Richard's life-time, that is. It might even have been a combination of Rivers disputing Richard's authority and Buckingham informing Richard about the coronation plans that led to those arrests. Hilary continued: Secondly, as well as MB, don't forget Buckingham had two aunts who were married to Talbots. One was Joan Cheddar, who'd been married to his uncle Richard and went on to marry Eleanor's brother, Lord Lisle. She died in 1464 but would have been alive at the time of the Pre Contract, the other was his aunt Catherine, also now dead, who had been married to Eleanor's (half) nephew. She was around until 1475. She too would have been an adult at the time of the Pre Contract. Doug here: Did Joan Cheddar die before or after Edward made his announcement about himself and Elizabeth Woodville? I don't know if it really matters, as she could have passed information on. I couldn't find either his aunt Catherine or Eleanor's (half) nephew (he types, cringing with embarrassment), but family connections could certainly provide a route for such information to travel along. I still think, however, that direct knowledge of the Pre-Contract, was almost certainly limited to a very few; Edward, Eleanor, a priest (if there was one), and the one or two persons Eleanor might have told. Do we know of anyone who was close to Eleanor who survived until after 9 April, thus allowing for some sort of deposition to be taken? Hilary concluded: Finally, there was a college at Cambridge called Bokingham or Buckingham College. It was funded by the Buckinghams, but overseen by the abbot of Croyland. So both Buckingham and MB had more than a slight connection with Croyland. Doug here: If the Wikipedia article is accurate, it seems Buckingham College was so-named because of the interest and generosity of our Buckingham. Who'da thunk it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-21 11:42:12
Nicholas Brown

Hi Carol,
Thanks for setting me right on that, and it would be a good idea to do detailed comparison of Croyland and Mancini.
Nico
On Saturday, 20 January 2018, 16:23:47 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:


Nico wrote:

I thought that it was Hastings that informed Richard that EIV had died, and the EW had not informed him because she and the Woodvilles were playing for more time to rush EV's coronation. Is this just Mancini, and if incorrect how did Richard find out that EIV was dead if there was no letter from Hastings?
Carol responds:

I'm not saying that there was definitely no letter from Hastings, only that Croyland doesn't mention it and Mancini could not possibly have known its contents as he pretends. Hastings does seem the most likely person to write the letter as he was (according to Croyland) concerned about Woodville manipulation of the council, but it could have been Russell or someone else who believed strongly that Richard's presence as Protector was sorely needed. None of the correspondence from that time has been preserved, so far as we know, so much of what happened is guesswork.

Someone needs to sit down and compare the accounts of Croyland and Mancini point by point (ignoring the supposed *contents* of imaginary letters and imaginary conversations) to see exactly where they agree and disagree and what appears in one account but not the other. In the case of contradictions, we'd at least know that one or the other is wrong!

Carol

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

2018-01-21 12:27:16
Nicholas Brown
Doug: What do you, or anyone else, think of the idea that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan might have been arrested for trying to prevent Richard, Constable of England, from, not seeing the new king, but for disputing Richard's right to take custody of his nephew?
I think that could be a plausible explanation for what happened. Doing that would be a challenge to Richard as Protector, and interference with his ability to carry out that role. If he did learn that AW was trying to arrange a hasty coronation, then he probably would have realized that the Woodvilles intended to manipulate the council and push him out.

Doug: Do we know of anyone who was close to Eleanor who survived until after 9 April, thus allowing for some sort of deposition to be taken?
Eleanor's brother, Humphrey and sister, Elizabeth were still alive in 1483 as was, a niece, Elizabeth Talbot (daughter of her other brother Lord Lisle and Joan Cheddar). At least one of her half-siblings, Katherine Eyton was still alive and here were probably several other nieces and nephews. There was also cousins, Buckingham, his half sister Margaret Tuchet and her aunt, Anne Beauchamp. There were also some Neville cousins, but I don't think they would have known her as well. I think the most likely to have been deposed were the brother and sister.



On Saturday, 20 January 2018, 17:54:13 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Just a little bit more info I've scraped up on Buckingham. Firstly, he had another title - Earl of Northampton - which he inherited from his grandfather and was reconfirmed by Edward in 1472/3. Wouldn't it be just like Buckingham to convene a meeting at the home of his 'earldom'? Suppose he'd gleaned some info on Woodville plans from his wife and thought that this was a marvellous opportunity for an expose with him as the sort of master magician who would immediately then be 'in' with Richard. And in fact it's very like the expose of Hastings. Where was Buckingham that day? Doug here: Besides Buckingham's title, there's also the fact that Northampton had been the site of more than a dozen Parliaments and even briefly had a university from 1261 to 1265. The problem I see with Buckingham getting any information from his wife is: Where, even more importantly, when would she have gotten that information? Which is why I plumped for Buckingham possibly discovering the Woodville's intentions for a rushed coronation while accompanying Rivers, then passing that information on when he met Richard. What do you, or anyone else, think of the idea that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan might have been arrested for trying to prevent Richard, Constable of England, from, not seeing the new king, but for disputing Richard's right to take custody of his nephew? After all, Rivers may have been given the guardianship of the Prince of Wales, but that position no longer existed, did it? OTOH, Richard had been designated Constable of England as a life-time grant. Richard's life-time, that is. It might even have been a combination of Rivers disputing Richard's authority and Buckingham informing Richard about the coronation plans that led to those arrests. Hilary continued: Secondly, as well as MB, don't forget Buckingham had two aunts who were married to Talbots. One was Joan Cheddar, who'd been married to his uncle Richard and went on to marry Eleanor's brother, Lord Lisle. She died in 1464 but would have been alive at the time of the Pre Contract, the other was his aunt Catherine, also now dead, who had been married to Eleanor's (half) nephew. She was around until 1475. She too would have been an adult at the time of the Pre Contract. Doug here: Did Joan Cheddar die before or after Edward made his announcement about himself and Elizabeth Woodville? I don't know if it really matters, as she could have passed information on. I couldn't find either his aunt Catherine or Eleanor's (half) nephew (he types, cringing with embarrassment), but family connections could certainly provide a route for such information to travel along. I still think, however, that direct knowledge of the Pre-Contract, was almost certainly limited to a very few; Edward, Eleanor, a priest (if there was one), and the one or two persons Eleanor might have told. Do we know of anyone who was close to Eleanor who survived until after 9 April, thus allowing for some sort of deposition to be taken? Hilary concluded: Finally, there was a college at Cambridge called Bokingham or Buckingham College. It was funded by the Buckinghams, but overseen by the abbot of Croyland. So both Buckingham and MB had more than a slight connection with Croyland. Doug here: If the Wikipedia article is accurate, it seems Buckingham College was so-named because of the interest and generosity of our Buckingham. Who'da thunk it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-21 16:09:41
justcarol67
Nance wrote:

"Nico, good luck with trying to complain to Yahoo about their service. I've gotten no response at all while attempting to change to my current email address at other groups. Finally found out that a new invitation under the new address is the solution - problems: info now comes in at both addresses, which means a heck of a lot of holding down the delete button." Carol responds:

You can always check the messages at the website:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups//conversations/messages

No need to delete anything that way.

Carol


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

2018-01-21 17:12:30
Doug Stamate
Hilary, I don't know if this will help, but I looked up the terms and came up with: Pardoner  Usually associated with the sale of Indulgences. In an entry further down there was this: These grants of Indulgences were often entrusted to preachers of note who carried them from town to town, collecting money and using their eloquence to recommend the good work in question and to enhance the spiritual privileges attached to it. Wasn't one of the charges against Margaret that she'd raised money, and presumably sent it out of England? At any rate, once the boys were freed, they'd need money to help in their flight to...wherever. Tower Wardrober  A wardrober would have been someone in charge of the clothing and personal effects of another person. The Tower was a Royal palace as well as a fortress, so Tower Wardrober likely refers to a person who worked for the king, but which one? My understanding is that, until after Buckingham's Rebellion, the boys were kept, if not in the Royal apartments, then in ones befitting their rank (not the dungeons, IOW). Which means they'd almost certainly have servants to look after their clothing. Sarjeant of London  The spelling/phrasing led me first to wonder why a member of the legal profession was involved, but the other, military meaning could also apply. However, there is the possibility that he was of the legal profession if only because, when the king was absent from London, the Tower would be one of the main sites of government. We know the Council met there, the Mint was located there, so, or so it seems to me, there'd likely be a lot of paperwork flowing in and out. Groom of the Stirrup  couldn't find a definition, but there were definitions for Groom of the Chamber and Groom of the Stool (with the latter being exactly what you think it was). However, remembering what I've seen in movies and on television, could a Groom of the Stirrup be providing services such as a doorman might today? Today's doorman might call a taxi, even help one in and out the taxi, possibly see that one's luggage is stowed away. Or, if the hotel is ritzy enough, he might even have one's car brought out or placed in a garage. Would substituting horse for car/taxi gives an idea of what a Groom of the Stirrup might do? I've also seen depictions of processions where a man is apparently leading the horse on which an important person is riding. Sometimes the rider is female, but not always. Whatever the exact duties, it does appear to be a more exalted position than that of someone who worked in the stables. At any rate, we've someone who could have been moving money around for Margaret (that Pardoner), someone who seemingly has time on his hands (the legal or military Sarjeant), someone directly associated with being inside the part of the Tower where the boys were (the Wardrober), and a Groom associated with the most likely means of a rapid exit. Brackenbury was the Constable of the Tower, so I think we can rule out any involvement of him. Now, Buckingham was Constable of England, which would given him enough authority to have the boys moved on their own, wouldn't it? If someone showed up at the Tower with papers saying the boys were to be moved to (fill in the blank), would anyone refuse? Of course, everything would depend on where the Constable of the Tower was and, most importantly, where Richard was, so that there wouldn't be an opportunity to check on those orders. So I'm going for Margaret Beaufort, with possible input from Elizabeth Woodville, as being the one behind the attempt. Doug Who can recommend some hot, buttered toast to go along with the scrambled eggs... Hilary wrote: Hi Nico, they are: William Davy Pardoner Stephen Ireland Tower Wardrober Robert Rushe Sarjeant of London John Smith Groom of the Stirrup So looks like a bit of an inside job. They are very difficult to track down because, as Doug once said, they were probably servants - but of whom? Buckingham held a lot of land virtually everywhere. I'll see if I can get his exact Northants holdings from one of his ancestor's IPM. I'm pretty sure from the 'King's Mother' book that MB visited Buckingham at least once and that he visited her in Guildford. I'll look it up. Re your other post I'm still 'wayting' but I can only do it in bits as it turns your brain to scrambled eggs :)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-22 11:58:41
Hilary Jones
Hi Doug, said I'd be back! Firstly can I congratulate you on originally querying this. It shows how 'historical facts' just get trotted out for generations without a thought.
Can we move on to Rivers for a moment and I'll come back to Northampton/Towcester? I'm lucky enough to have on one very old PC a very old version of a 'routemaster' - the sort that you just to print out as a map in the 1960s. I asked it to plot the quickest route from Ludlow to London which it did. It's 140 miles, which is quite far in English and fifteenth century terms.
The route it came up with was this: Ludlow, Kidderminster, Bromsgove, Evesham, Banbury, Stow on the Wold, Oxford, Hemel Hempstead, Slough, London. Now the last bit of this from Oxford was on the M40 motorway, but there would still have been routes through the Thames Valley via Windsor, Richmond etc which would have taken you into London. This is miles west of the A5 and Northampton, so why did Rivers take the other route which would have meant him crossing over from Banbury to Daventry to Northampton? The only reason I can come up with is that the Bromsgrove to Banbury bit is prime sheep country and we know how much farmers hated troops marauding over their lands, but then so is the route from Banbury to Northampton.
I have some other questions too.
Firstly York to London is 211 miles, so think how immensely difficult it must have been to co-ordinate a meeting between two lots of people (with troops) coming over large distances from completely different directions? You'd have thought that one of them would have had to hang about for the other for a couple of days or more.
Secondly, why is the King seemingly going out of his way to meet Richard and not the other way round. Surely protocol would dictate that Richard should go to the King? And why were they all wandering around the countryside with no sense of urgency when surely the King should have gone quickly to London? Even Ross asks that.
Thirdly, by far the biggest town in the area was Coventry, which was in the 'top ten' of towns. The young King had a special relationship with Coventry which had come under his official guardianship after the death of Clarence. There is quite a lot of correspondence between him (obviously Rivers) in the Leet Books i.e. the same sort of relationship which Richard had with York, so if Rivers was 'parading him round' why didn't he touch on Coventry?
Re the sizes of Towcester and Northampton, I would say there was very little in it at the time, with both being geared for travellers. What I fail to understand it why it would appear that Rivers went so completely out of his way to venture into Northamptonshire at all. But of course we don't know what Buckingham was up to in all this. H

On Friday, 19 January 2018, 16:46:45 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Hilary,
Thanks for that link, but it's a pity it doesn't have much information about Towcester's population.
I've searched, but I can't find anything relating to the populations of Towcester and Northampton during this period.
However, as Northampton was one of the major towns in the country during the preceding two centuries or so, I went for it, presuming it to have a larger population than Towcester. The Wikipedia article for Northampton had its' population at 3300 in the late 14th century.
My reasoning was that the larger the town, the more likely it would have the necessary supplies in sufficient amounts. Horses could be fed in any convenient village field/pasture, but 2,000 men would require quite a bit of meat, bread and, most likely, ale/wine. Then we have to add in another 400-600 men with Richard and Buckingham. I seriously doubt Northampton was growing by leaps and bounds during the 15th century, but it could still be expected that it was of sufficient size to accommodate an influx of nearly 3,000. At least for one night, anyway. Wasn't there a battle there at the beginning of the Wars of the Roses? II f so, does anyone have any knowledge of the size of Northampton then?
I admit I hadn't thought of Rivers and Buckingham camping at/near Towcester and having supplies brought out, is certainly very possible. The only limitation I can think of would be that all the supplies would likely have to be brought by horseback. So either the horses would have to carry both a rider and a load of supplies, or else there were enough pack animals available to be loaded themselves. In either case, there'd be the time element. First round up those who were going into Northampton to get the supplies. Then ride into Northampton. Then dicker with those who have the supplies you want, with cash on the barrelhead the most likely payment terms. Then load up the horses. Then return to the camp/s at/near Towcester, unload the horses and settle in for the night. OTOH, if everyone goes to Northampton, then the time consumed by those to/from trips is eliminated. And Rivers could sleep in a (semi)decent bed..
Anyway, those were the reasons I opted for Northampton rather than Towcester.
Doug
(Who is never, ever mistaken in his facts or reasoning!)
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Doug - just rushing through! Re your first point about supplies in Northampton, the Romans had built Towcester (Lactodorum) as their supply post on the A5. Now I know time had moved on but ....

Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website

Welcome to the Towcester and District Local History Society website
David Wilcock

Towcester and District Local History Society - Historic Towcester




Even if it hadn't had as many supplies as Northampton I would have thought it would have been easier for all three parties to meet and rest there, whilst sending a contingent to get supplies from Northampton. After all, Richard would have already have passed through it anyway (and probably Peterborough as well). You make some good points about the Rivers journey.
I'll be back later with response on rest. H (and even today Towcester is a bottleneck).

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



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

2018-01-22 12:26:43
Hilary Jones
Re your first para Doug, the trouble is that, as outlined in my other post today, it would seem that it was Rivers who went out of his way to meet Richard - or did he go out of his way because he intended to arrest Richard or someway halt his advance?
Joan Cheddar died on 15 Jul 1464, that is after Edward married EW but before he made his announcement. However, re your other paragraph, she could have passed the information on to her sister Isabel, who was married to the Talbot lawyer and Judge Sir John Newton. Both Isabel and John were alive in 1483 and very religious. They were probably friends of Stillington since their sons married his granddaughters.
Now I didn't look at Wiki but it did strike me that it's always said that the Chronicler must have had a knowledge of the inner workings of the Council. Who better than Bucks himself to pass on info, correct or not?
On Saturday, 20 January 2018, 17:54:10 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Just a little bit more info I've scraped up on Buckingham. Firstly, he had another title - Earl of Northampton - which he inherited from his grandfather and was reconfirmed by Edward in 1472/3. Wouldn't it be just like Buckingham to convene a meeting at the home of his 'earldom'? Suppose he'd gleaned some info on Woodville plans from his wife and thought that this was a marvellous opportunity for an expose with him as the sort of master magician who would immediately then be 'in' with Richard. And in fact it's very like the expose of Hastings. Where was Buckingham that day? Doug here: Besides Buckingham's title, there's also the fact that Northampton had been the site of more than a dozen Parliaments and even briefly had a university from 1261 to 1265. The problem I see with Buckingham getting any information from his wife is: Where, even more importantly, when would she have gotten that information? Which is why I plumped for Buckingham possibly discovering the Woodville's intentions for a rushed coronation while accompanying Rivers, then passing that information on when he met Richard. What do you, or anyone else, think of the idea that Rivers, Grey and Vaughan might have been arrested for trying to prevent Richard, Constable of England, from, not seeing the new king, but for disputing Richard's right to take custody of his nephew? After all, Rivers may have been given the guardianship of the Prince of Wales, but that position no longer existed, did it? OTOH, Richard had been designated Constable of England as a life-time grant. Richard's life-time, that is. It might even have been a combination of Rivers disputing Richard's authority and Buckingham informing Richard about the coronation plans that led to those arrests. Hilary continued: Secondly, as well as MB, don't forget Buckingham had two aunts who were married to Talbots. One was Joan Cheddar, who'd been married to his uncle Richard and went on to marry Eleanor's brother, Lord Lisle. She died in 1464 but would have been alive at the time of the Pre Contract, the other was his aunt Catherine, also now dead, who had been married to Eleanor's (half) nephew. She was around until 1475. She too would have been an adult at the time of the Pre Contract. Doug here: Did Joan Cheddar die before or after Edward made his announcement about himself and Elizabeth Woodville? I don't know if it really matters, as she could have passed information on. I couldn't find either his aunt Catherine or Eleanor's (half) nephew (he types, cringing with embarrassment), but family connections could certainly provide a route for such information to travel along. I still think, however, that direct knowledge of the Pre-Contract, was almost certainly limited to a very few; Edward, Eleanor, a priest (if there was one), and the one or two persons Eleanor might have told. Do we know of anyone who was close to Eleanor who survived until after 9 April, thus allowing for some sort of deposition to be taken? Hilary concluded: Finally, there was a college at Cambridge called Bokingham or Buckingham College. It was funded by the Buckinghams, but overseen by the abbot of Croyland. So both Buckingham and MB had more than a slight connection with Croyland. Doug here: If the Wikipedia article is accurate, it seems Buckingham College was so-named because of the interest and generosity of our Buckingham. Who'da thunk it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-22 14:01:41
ricard1an
Your point about Doug bringing up the issue of various people's routes to Northampton and the logistics of dealing with the needs of lots of men is excellent. It did cross my mind that it appears that no one has questioned what would you do with all those men when I read Doug's post but the issues regarding the route are very important too. It seems to me that something was definitely afoot.
Could it have been that Rivers was nervous about travelling on the usual route as he may have encountered men who were against the Woodvilles and for Richard and therefore he needed to get Edward as close to Woodville territory as possible? Also the theory that he wanted to ambush Richard might well be true (see the Ricardian article on it). He may have thought that the nearer he got to London the less likely he would be to pull it off and while he had to get Edward to London as quickly as possible this might be his last chance to stop Richard. He would maybe have been quite confident as he may have known that he had many more men than Richard, if so he massively underestimated Richard's abilities.
Well said Doug for bringing up all these points.
Mary

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

2018-01-22 15:04:55
Hilary Jones
Mary you make a very good point indeed. You see if instead of turning off the A5 at Weedon for Northampton you go further south and turn off before Milton Keynes (then a village) the route takes you directly through - Grafton Regis! H
On Monday, 22 January 2018, 14:01:48 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Your point about Doug bringing up the issue of various people's routes to Northampton and the logistics of dealing with the needs of lots of men is excellent. It did cross my mind that it appears that no one has questioned what would you do with all those men when I read Doug's post but the issues regarding the route are very important too. It seems to me that something was definitely afoot.


Could it have been that Rivers was nervous about travelling on the usual route as he may have encountered men who were against the Woodvilles and for Richard and therefore he needed to get Edward as close to Woodville territory as possible? Also the theory that he wanted to ambush Richard might well be true (see the Ricardian article on it). He may have thought that the nearer he got to London the less likely he would be to pull it off and while he had to get Edward to London as quickly as possible this might be his last chance to stop Richard. He would maybe have been quite confident as he may have known that he had many more men than Richard, if so he massively underestimated Richard's abilities.
Well said Doug for bringing up all these points.
Mary

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

2018-01-22 21:19:40
ricard1an
Interesting. Do think that maybe Edward was sent to Grafton Regis down that road but with an escort while Rivers went to Northampton and took some of the men with him to Northhampton?
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-23 20:06:08
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote: While the 'House of Lancaster' had been quiet and essentially finished after Tewkesbury, there still may have been some Lancastrian families whose fortunes had declined or stagnated under Edward IV, and as a result felt a combination of resentment towards the new regime as well as nostalgia for the old. Buckingham may have had the idea of exploiting that discontent. Reggie Bray may have fallen into that category and possibly Morton. Margaret Beaufort may even retained some Lancastrian loyalties that made her vulnerable to manipulation. I'm particularly confused about her motivations, as she was doing so well having married Stanley, who had a strong Yorkist allegiance. I would have thought she would have been happy about that other than not being able to bring Henry back, so maybe I have overestimated her backing for Buckingham. Maybe she would have been content with E5 giving HT a prominent position and marrying EofY, but I would put it past her to court Buckingham too. I think that playing both sides may have been something she and Thomas Stanley had in common. Doug here: It wasn't that I believed there weren't any remaining Lancastrians/Lancastrian sympathizers, but rather their numbers would be too few, thus requiring some sort of group effort between various factions. Which, or so it seems to me, would require the candidate to appeal to the largest number of groups/factions possible and I can't see Buckingham managing to do that. At least, not when the plotting began.
Nico continued: As for the Tower Servants, Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith being answerable to Buckingham, I did mean with respect to him being Constable, as I would he would have ultimate authority over anyone who worked there. He may not have any personal dealings with them and I strongly suspect that they may have been bribed either someone working for the Woodvilles or Margaret Beaufort. Doug here: That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be certain. FWIW, those four could have represented the money needed for bribes (Davy, the Pardoner), the inside man (Ireland, the Wardrober), the muscle (Rushe, that sarjeant of London), and the man in charge of the get-away (Smith, Groom of the Stirrup). If Rushe was a legal type, and not military, perhaps he was the one in charge; locally so to speak? Much would have depended on the time of day for the escape, I would think.
Nco continued: Since there isn't any actual proof of what Buckingham's intention was, that does leave the possibility that Morton may have thought that he wasn't capable of leading or taking on a 'Kingmaker' role, and that was what changed and made him think that the rebellion was doomed. However, personally I do get the impression that Buckingham was all for himself. Doug here: If Buckingham's ego was as large as many say, he may very well have planned to divert the rebellion to himself from the beginning but, FWIW, I still think Morton likely had something to do with that. Morton, OTOH (and at this point), I consider to be working solely for his own advancement. Whether under a restored Edward V or Buckingham wouldn't have mattered so much as the effort being successful.
Nico continued: If it was Morton who tipped off Richard about the Hastings plot, the custody with Buckingham may have been protective. I wouldn't put it past him to have given the plot away, as I don't see him as a natural ally of either Hastings or the Woodvilles. Alternatively, Richard may just have been unsure about him, especially given his former loyalty to MoA and E4 not promoting him to especially prominent positions. Alcock was appointed to E5's council, but not him, so I could understand if there was a natural resentment between Morton, Hastings and the Woodvilles and little reason for Morton to join an uneasy pact between people who may have been acting out of desperation to cling onto whatever they could. Doug here: It all goes back to what the aim of that plot was, doesn't it? And, more importantly I think, the chance that those aims would be met by the proposed action of killing Richard and Buckingham. If, as I believe, the plot was in reaction to Stillington's announcement about the Pre-Contract made to the Council in late May, then the aim of the plot was to get rid of Richard and Buckingham because they were adult males with known legitimate claims to the throne. I'm only guessing here, but I presume the thinking of the plotters would have been to get rid of any possible alternatives to retaining Edward V. As far we know, however, there's been no mention of what was to happen to Stillington and, most importantly, his proofs. And what does one do about all those Council members who'd accepted the evidence Stillington had provided? Some might have gone along, but what were the odds of everyone doing so? It also seems to me that there'd have been no need for a plot at all, if the Council was going to reject Stillington and his evidence. The plot, in other words, was in response to the knowledge that Stillington's evidence was almost certainly to be accepted. As best we can tell, the secret of Edward and Eleanor's marriage remained a secret for so long because, while there may have been speculation, so few people had any proof. Now the entire Council not only knew, but had been shown proof of it! The only way to effectively prevent the knowledge of Edward V's illegitimacy spreading would have been a holocaust of Council members. Otherwise, someone would, sooner or later, talk. And if they had those proofs... Which is where Morton comes in. The plot might very well succeed in dispatching Richard and Buckingham, but with so many people, well-placed, influential people who would be believed, knowing Edward V was illegitimate, that knowledge could no longer be kept secret. And if Edward's illegitimacy was known, sworn and attested to, then there was no way he could stay on the throne. Richard might be dead, but there were no doubts about the legitimacy of his heir. Or Buckingham's, for that matter. So Morton judged the odds of success...and ratted. At the very least, doing so would save him imprisonment and, although unlikely, the threat of execution. He might, if lucky, score a few brownie points, but I doubt he counted on it. FWIW, I tend towards the idea that Morton first joined in supporting the Woodvilles because they provided the best chance for that rehabilitation which would allow him greater play for his talents. OTOH, Hastings support of Edward V/the Woodvilles is, I think, completely understandable in light of Stillington's actions. As long as Hastings was faced with the choice of supporting Richard as Protector against the Woodvilles, he chose Richard. Even if Hastings lost his various appointments, even if Richard held him partly responsible for Edward's moral lapses, Richard would still need Hastings' support against the Woodvilles. If, OTOH, Richard became king, then Hastings' value disappeared. If Richard became king, one might debate with him, one might even argue with him, but the final decision would be Richard's even if a majority of the Council didn't agree. Richard might want a majority of his Council to agree with his actions/plans, but he didn't need them to do so. And if Richard no longer needed Hastings, and if Richard held Hastings responsible for many of Edward IV's more deplorable activities, Hastings might be lucky if he was allowed to quietly retire to one of his manors...which, FWIW, is the approach Morton used. Nico concluded: Earlier this week, I bought a copy of Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion by Louise Gill, which is the only book that I know of that specializes on Buckingham. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I hope it can give some new insight into what motivated the various parties. There is one copy left on AmazonUK for 75p. Doug here: I don't know if I can purchase anything via AmazonUK, I'll check on the U.S. version, though. If I recall correctly from comments here and elsewhere, it doesn't support the idea that Richard outraged large numbers of his brother's supporters by replacing them with his own. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-23 20:45:27
Hilary Jones
I think we may have missed something else too. The road to Stony Stratford and the A5 from Northampton takes you through Grafton Regis. So was the Woodville plan to ambush Richard at Northampton or whilst he was with them going through Grafton? Remember EW originally wanted AW to bring a 'large army' but Hastings dissuaded her.
I'm beginning to think a trap was being set for Richard, in fact at one point Ross says it's possible that EW notified him of Edward's death. That way she could have better control of his movements because she knew he would act in a conventional fashion i.e. hold a service and then leave - which he did. There would then be time to let AW know and to move because he had less distance to cover.
We don't know how many men both sides had. The 2,000 is an estimate of a medieval 'small army' and sometimes it's thought the size of armies has been exaggerated. We do know Richard didn't bring that many because he was asking for aid from York a few weeks' later. So he probably didn't know when he left York.
So who let him know what was going on? Buckingham? Well that explains why he turned up. Or Hastings? Or even Thomas Stanley - who isn't one of those listed as being a member of 'the Council'? H
On Monday, 22 January 2018, 21:19:55 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Interesting. Do think that maybe Edward was sent to Grafton Regis down that road but with an escort while Rivers went to Northampton and took some of the men with him to Northhampton?


Mary

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

2018-01-23 23:09:06
ricard1an
I think the article in the Ricardian suggests this scenario. If I remember rightly there is a map with the author's theory of how it would happen. Of course we know that it didn't happen because Richard outwitted them, however, he must have known that something was afoot. He would have had people spying for him and he probably wouldn't have come south with out knowing something of what was going on.
I think that Doug's theory about Hastings rings very true. Hastings wouldn't have wanted the Woodvilles in charge of the young king, their actions in the aftermath of Edward's death were enough to show how they would have ruled, so Richard as Protector was a much better bet. Also Annette Carson says that Hastings and the Woodvilles were at odds too over the Captaincy of Calais if I remember correctly.
However, Richard as King might have meant the end of Hastings power at court and he probably wouldn't have wanted that. I don't think that Richard would have taken any of his property away from him but he wouldn't have had as much power. It is a shame really because had they been on the same side Hastings and his retinue would probably have been a lifesaver at Bosworth.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-24 10:08:45
Hilary Jones
Doug you should be able to buy from Amazon UK. I did when I was in Australia.
Re the point about numbers of old Lancastrians, to realise how many there were you need to look at HT's list of reversed attainders in his first Parliament. Even if the people were dead (and some of these were) attainders carried on in their family. So these are people or children of people who fought on the wrong side at Barnet, Tewkesbury, Towton, you name it. Yes, there was an awful lot of brewing resentment out there which Edward had probably become too ill or too lazy to notice. They far outnumber Edwardian Yorkists, of whom I've yet to find one good example who is not related to the Woodvilles. H
(And I'd have to add, when Richard attainted even more after the rebellions this didn't help either, though only about a quarter went on to fight him at Bosworth)
On Tuesday, 23 January 2018, 20:12:53 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: While the 'House of Lancaster' had been quiet and essentially finished after Tewkesbury, there still may have been some Lancastrian families whose fortunes had declined or stagnated under Edward IV, and as a result felt a combination of resentment towards the new regime as well as nostalgia for the old. Buckingham may have had the idea of exploiting that discontent. Reggie Bray may have fallen into that category and possibly Morton. Margaret Beaufort may even retained some Lancastrian loyalties that made her vulnerable to manipulation. I'm particularly confused about her motivations, as she was doing so well having married Stanley, who had a strong Yorkist allegiance. I would have thought she would have been happy about that other than not being able to bring Henry back, so maybe I have overestimated her backing for Buckingham. Maybe she would have been content with E5 giving HT a prominent position and marrying EofY, but I would put it past her to court Buckingham too. I think that playing both sides may have been something she and Thomas Stanley had in common. Doug here: It wasn't that I believed there weren't any remaining Lancastrians/Lancastrian sympathizers, but rather their numbers would be too few, thus requiring some sort of group effort between various factions. Which, or so it seems to me, would require the candidate to appeal to the largest number of groups/factions possible and I can't see Buckingham managing to do that. At least, not when the plotting began.
Nico continued: As for the Tower Servants, Davy, Ireland, Rushe and Smith being answerable to Buckingham, I did mean with respect to him being Constable, as I would he would have ultimate authority over anyone who worked there. He may not have any personal dealings with them and I strongly suspect that they may have been bribed either someone working for the Woodvilles or Margaret Beaufort. Doug here: That's what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be certain. FWIW, those four could have represented the money needed for bribes (Davy, the Pardoner), the inside man (Ireland, the Wardrober), the muscle (Rushe, that sarjeant of London), and the man in charge of the get-away (Smith, Groom of the Stirrup). If Rushe was a legal type, and not military, perhaps he was the one in charge; locally so to speak? Much would have depended on the time of day for the escape, I would think.
Nco continued: Since there isn't any actual proof of what Buckingham's intention was, that does leave the possibility that Morton may have thought that he wasn't capable of leading or taking on a 'Kingmaker' role, and that was what changed and made him think that the rebellion was doomed. However, personally I do get the impression that Buckingham was all for himself. Doug here: If Buckingham's ego was as large as many say, he may very well have planned to divert the rebellion to himself from the beginning but, FWIW, I still think Morton likely had something to do with that. Morton, OTOH (and at this point), I consider to be working solely for his own advancement. Whether under a restored Edward V or Buckingham wouldn't have mattered so much as the effort being successful.
Nico continued: If it was Morton who tipped off Richard about the Hastings plot, the custody with Buckingham may have been protective. I wouldn't put it past him to have given the plot away, as I don't see him as a natural ally of either Hastings or the Woodvilles. Alternatively, Richard may just have been unsure about him, especially given his former loyalty to MoA and E4 not promoting him to especially prominent positions. Alcock was appointed to E5's council, but not him, so I could understand if there was a natural resentment between Morton, Hastings and the Woodvilles and little reason for Morton to join an uneasy pact between people who may have been acting out of desperation to cling onto whatever they could. Doug here: It all goes back to what the aim of that plot was, doesn't it? And, more importantly I think, the chance that those aims would be met by the proposed action of killing Richard and Buckingham. If, as I believe, the plot was in reaction to Stillington's announcement about the Pre-Contract made to the Council in late May, then the aim of the plot was to get rid of Richard and Buckingham because they were adult males with known legitimate claims to the throne. I'm only guessing here, but I presume the thinking of the plotters would have been to get rid of any possible alternatives to retaining Edward V. As far we know, however, there's been no mention of what was to happen to Stillington and, most importantly, his proofs. And what does one do about all those Council members who'd accepted the evidence Stillington had provided? Some might have gone along, but what were the odds of everyone doing so? It also seems to me that there'd have been no need for a plot at all, if the Council was going to reject Stillington and his evidence. The plot, in other words, was in response to the knowledge that Stillington's evidence was almost certainly to be accepted. As best we can tell, the secret of Edward and Eleanor's marriage remained a secret for so long because, while there may have been speculation, so few people had any proof. Now the entire Council not only knew, but had been shown proof of it! The only way to effectively prevent the knowledge of Edward V's illegitimacy spreading would have been a holocaust of Council members. Otherwise, someone would, sooner or later, talk. And if they had those proofs... Which is where Morton comes in. The plot might very well succeed in dispatching Richard and Buckingham, but with so many people, well-placed, influential people who would be believed, knowing Edward V was illegitimate, that knowledge could no longer be kept secret. And if Edward's illegitimacy was known, sworn and attested to, then there was no way he could stay on the throne. Richard might be dead, but there were no doubts about the legitimacy of his heir. Or Buckingham's, for that matter. So Morton judged the odds of success...and ratted. At the very least, doing so would save him imprisonment and, although unlikely, the threat of execution. He might, if lucky, score a few brownie points, but I doubt he counted on it. FWIW, I tend towards the idea that Morton first joined in supporting the Woodvilles because they provided the best chance for that rehabilitation which would allow him greater play for his talents. OTOH, Hastings support of Edward V/the Woodvilles is, I think, completely understandable in light of Stillington's actions. As long as Hastings was faced with the choice of supporting Richard as Protector against the Woodvilles, he chose Richard. Even if Hastings lost his various appointments, even if Richard held him partly responsible for Edward's moral lapses, Richard would still need Hastings' support against the Woodvilles. If, OTOH, Richard became king, then Hastings' value disappeared. If Richard became king, one might debate with him, one might even argue with him, but the final decision would be Richard's even if a majority of the Council didn't agree. Richard might want a majority of his Council to agree with his actions/plans, but he didn't need them to do so. And if Richard no longer needed Hastings, and if Richard held Hastings responsible for many of Edward IV's more deplorable activities, Hastings might be lucky if he was allowed to quietly retire to one of his manors...which, FWIW, is the approach Morton used. Nico concluded: Earlier this week, I bought a copy of Richard III and Buckingham's Rebellion by Louise Gill, which is the only book that I know of that specializes on Buckingham. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I hope it can give some new insight into what motivated the various parties. There is one copy left on AmazonUK for 75p. Doug here: I don't know if I can purchase anything via AmazonUK, I'll check on the U.S. version, though. If I recall correctly from comments here and elsewhere, it doesn't support the idea that Richard outraged large numbers of his brother's supporters by replacing them with his own. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-24 16:17:00
Doug Stamate
Nico wrote:
I think that [the idea Rivers, et al were arrested for attempting to prevent Richard as Constable/Protector from taking custody of his nephew] could be a plausible explanation for what happened. Doing that would be a challenge to Richard as Protector, and interference with his ability to carry out that role. If he did learn that AW was trying to arrange a hasty coronation, then he probably would have realized that the Woodvilles intended to manipulate the council and push him out. Doug here: It would also be a challenge to Richard as Constable, wouldn't it? And Woodville's position as tutor/guardian of the Prince of Wales had ceased on the death of Edward IV, while Richard's appointment as Constable was for Richard's life (unless/until the new king wished to appoint someone else). At any rate, if we view a possible attempt by Woodville to prevent Richard from taking custody of Edward as the event that alerted Richard the Woodvilles planned some sort of hanky-panky and follow it up with Buckingham telling Richard, after Rivers & Co. had departed for the night, that a hurried coronation was planned for 3/4 May, even if Richard's authority as Protector had still to be accepted by the Council, his position as Constable still gave him the authority to detain Rivers & Co.
Nico concluded: Eleanor's brother, Humphrey and sister, Elizabeth were still alive in 1483 as was, a niece, Elizabeth Talbot (daughter of her other brother Lord Lisle and Joan Cheddar). At least one of her half-siblings, Katherine Eyton was still alive and here were probably several other nieces and nephews. There was also cousins, Buckingham, his half sister Margaret Tuchet and her aunt, Anne Beauchamp. There were also some Neville cousins, but I don't think they would have known her as well. I think the most likely to have been deposed were the brother and sister. Doug here: Other than placing her sister in the primary spot, I'd be tempted to list the order of those who'd been told by Eleanor as: her sister Elizabeth, her niece Elizabeth and then her brother Humphrey, and then possibly Anne Beauchamp. All the while reserving the idea that Stillington's proof consisted of something he'd been told either in the Confessional or on a death-bed. That last would have had enough importance on its' own to justify further inquiries, wouldn't it? Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-24 17:00:35
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Re your first para Doug, the trouble is that, as outlined in my other post today, it would seem that it was Rivers who went out of his way to meet Richard - or did he go out of his way because he intended to arrest Richard or someway halt his advance? Doug here: Richard was Constable of England and, if not yet confirmed, it was apparently well-known he was the intended Protector of Edward until the latter reached his majority (likely to be determined by the Council). Rivers was...the new king's uncle. He held no position of State, his authority as tutor/guardian of the Prince of Wales ceased with the death of Edward IV. All he was at that point his only official position was that of escort to the king. Which means that, while it fell on Richard to request an interview with Edward, it also fell on Rivers to make the first advances in setting up any meeting between himself and Richard.So the situation would have been Richard asking to see the new king, and being put off by someone who literally had absolutely no authority to hinder the Constable of England from seeing the King. Add any information about the plans for a hurried coronation Buckingham may have provided after Richard and Rivers had separated for the night and, or so it seems to me, we have an excellent justification for Richard's actions in arresting Rivers & Co. the following morning. Or don't we? That's the major reason I got so bogged down in the logistics of the situation; who was where, when could they have arrived, etc., because who was where might help clarify just what did happen at Northampton. Hilary continued: Joan Cheddar died on 15 Jul 1464, that is after Edward married EW but before he made his announcement. However, re your other paragraph, she could have passed the information on to her sister Isabel, who was married to the Talbot lawyer and Judge Sir John Newton. Both Isabel and John were alive in 1483 and very religious. They were probably friends of Stillington since their sons married his granddaughters. Doug here: If Stillington's proofs weren't based on something from either the Confessional or a death-bed admission, Eleanor's sister Isabel and Sir John could very well have been it. Especially with Sir John being a judge. And the familial connection would explain why it was Stillington. Hilary concluded: Now I didn't look at Wiki but it did strike me that it's always said that the Chronicler must have had a knowledge of the inner workings of the Council. Who better than Bucks himself to pass on info, correct or not? Doug here: It's the Chronicler's errors that have always led me to believe that his main informant was someone who, while associated in some way with the Council, wasn't a member. I don't know if the Council had a staff, so to speak, but any official secretary would also have more complete, detailed and correct information (who said what, etc.). As would any scribes responsible for writing up the official record of proceedings. Which leaves me the informant being someone who wasn't in attendance at the Council, but did know someone who was. Was there a medieval equivalent of the Official Secrets Act? If not, then I'd go for the secretary or scribes passing information on while conversing with someone who then passed on what they'd heard to the Chronicler at Croyland Abbey. Doug A thought literally just occurred to me: Pardoners went from town to town, didn't they? Perhaps that was the method of transmission?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-24 17:12:46
Hilary Jones
And of course William Davy, executed for the 'Tower break-in' was a Pardoner.
For the rest see my later posts on the Richard/Rivers logistics. BTW I'm still interested to know what Sir Thomas was doing during all this. He is both familiarly and geographically close to Bucks (and that goes long before MB). And he did end up with a pretty good post under Richard, who hadn't had the opportunity to test his loyalty, unlike those who served with him in Scotland.
As we well know, the Stanleys were always 'chancers'. H
On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 17:00:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Re your first para Doug, the trouble is that, as outlined in my other post today, it would seem that it was Rivers who went out of his way to meet Richard - or did he go out of his way because he intended to arrest Richard or someway halt his advance? Doug here: Richard was Constable of England and, if not yet confirmed, it was apparently well-known he was the intended Protector of Edward until the latter reached his majority (likely to be determined by the Council). Rivers was...the new king's uncle. He held no position of State, his authority as tutor/guardian of the Prince of Wales ceased with the death of Edward IV. All he was at that point his only official position was that of escort to the king. Which means that, while it fell on Richard to request an interview with Edward, it also fell on Rivers to make the first advances in setting up any meeting between himself and Richard.So the situation would have been Richard asking to see the new king, and being put off by someone who literally had absolutely no authority to hinder the Constable of England from seeing the King. Add any information about the plans for a hurried coronation Buckingham may have provided after Richard and Rivers had separated for the night and, or so it seems to me, we have an excellent justification for Richard's actions in arresting Rivers & Co. the following morning. Or don't we? That's the major reason I got so bogged down in the logistics of the situation; who was where, when could they have arrived, etc., because who was where might help clarify just what did happen at Northampton. Hilary continued: Joan Cheddar died on 15 Jul 1464, that is after Edward married EW but before he made his announcement. However, re your other paragraph, she could have passed the information on to her sister Isabel, who was married to the Talbot lawyer and Judge Sir John Newton. Both Isabel and John were alive in 1483 and very religious. They were probably friends of Stillington since their sons married his granddaughters. Doug here: If Stillington's proofs weren't based on something from either the Confessional or a death-bed admission, Eleanor's sister Isabel and Sir John could very well have been it. Especially with Sir John being a judge. And the familial connection would explain why it was Stillington. Hilary concluded: Now I didn't look at Wiki but it did strike me that it's always said that the Chronicler must have had a knowledge of the inner workings of the Council. Who better than Bucks himself to pass on info, correct or not? Doug here: It's the Chronicler's errors that have always led me to believe that his main informant was someone who, while associated in some way with the Council, wasn't a member. I don't know if the Council had a staff, so to speak, but any official secretary would also have more complete, detailed and correct information (who said what, etc.). As would any scribes responsible for writing up the official record of proceedings. Which leaves me the informant being someone who wasn't in attendance at the Council, but did know someone who was. Was there a medieval equivalent of the Official Secrets Act? If not, then I'd go for the secretary or scribes passing information on while conversing with someone who then passed on what they'd heard to the Chronicler at Croyland Abbey. Doug A thought literally just occurred to me: Pardoners went from town to town, didn't they? Perhaps that was the method of transmission?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-24 20:42:10
ricard1an
Until this discussion started I have always accepted that Richard and Rivers met at Northampton and Buckingham turned up too. I didn't really look at the geography you just accept what you have been told by people who have previously researched the situation. Thank you Doug for looking outside the box and yes it is important to ask who was doing what and where they were doing it. If Rivers had been above board surely they wouldn't have met at Northampton. If he was just trying to get Edward to London quickly to hold the Coronation before Richard got there surely he would have taken the Kidderminster, Bromsgrove, Banbury route. There must have been an ulterior motive in meeting at Northampton.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-25 03:17:47
Doug Stamate
Mary wrote: Your point about Doug bringing up the issue of various people's routes to Northampton and the logistics of dealing with the needs of lots of men is excellent. It did cross my mind that it appears that no one has questioned what would you do with all those men when I read Doug's post but the issues regarding the route are very important too. It seems to me that something was definitely afoot. Doug here: FWIW, I've been working on the presumption that Rivers' main worry was getting his charge to London as quickly as possible once they'd set out on a route from Ludlow that went: Ludlow to Shrewsbury to London via Watling Street. I'm also working on the presumption that additional men were added to the party at Shrewsbury, which would explain why they'd be able to make 30 miles in one day going from Ludlow to Shrewsbury. The additional men then slowed their progress to around 20 miles a day, judging by when they were at Towcester/Northampton. Mary concluded: Could it have been that Rivers was nervous about travelling on the usual route as he may have encountered men who were against the Woodvilles and for Richard and therefore he needed to get Edward as close to Woodville territory as possible? Also the theory that he wanted to ambush Richard might well be true (see the Ricardian article on it). He may have thought that the nearer he got to London the less likely he would be to pull it off and while he had to get Edward to London as quickly as possible this might be his last chance to stop Richard. He woul d maybe have been quite confident as he may have known that he had many more men than Richard, if so he massively underestimated Richard's abilities. Well said Doug for bringing up all these points. Doug here: If the accounts are accurate, Rivers had two thousand armed men with him, plus another 200-300 accompanying Buckingham (presuming he was following along behind), so I don't think he'd have been worried about being attacked. And he doesn't seem to have particularly hurried, having taken five days to get from Ludlow to Towcester. FWIW, I tend towards the idea that Rivers didn't expect to meet Richard at Northampton, or anywhere else other than in London. We know Rivers left Ludlow on 24 April and that he met with Richard in the vicinity of Towcester/Northampton sometime on the 29th. If we presume Rivers' party traveled from Ludlow to Shrewsbury in one day (the 24th), that would have left them four days to get to Towcester/Northampton, averaging 25 miles a day (it's approximately 127 miles from Ludlow to Towcester/Northampton via Shrewsbury). But, unless my figures are incorrect, Rivers should have arrived at Towcester/Northampton on 28 April, departing the following morning in order to reach the next stopping point, likely Dunstable, sometime on the 29th. So why was Rivers still in the Towcester/Northampton area on 29 April? Could it have been because Richard also arrived in the same area on the same day, the 28th? Here's where I make a couple of presumptions. The first is that Richard, having something of a military mind, sent scouts ahead of his main party. Until Northampton was reached, those scouts would have likely been tasked with ensuring provisions and places to stay for each night's stop. However, once Richard reached the vicinity of Northampton, the scouts were sent ahead, not to make provisions for the night, Northampton was large enough to accommodate 200-300 men for a night, but instead to see if the Royal party had yet passed by on Watling Street. That's the second presumption. The third is that Richard knew, via those scouts, that, by the late afternoon of 28 April, Rivers' party was passing through Weedon Bec and settling in for the night at Towcester. This would account for Richard and Buckingham being together when Richard met Rivers on 29 April, because, unlike Rivers' party, Buckingham had turned of at Weedon Bec and made for Northampton, probably intending to then resume his place behind Rivers' party on the 29th by taking the road represented today by the A 43. The fourth and last presumption is that Rivers didn't know Richard was in Northampton. Actually, the presumption is that the scouts were instructed to report back to Richard rather than contact Rivers. If the scouts had discovered that Rivers passed through on the morning of 28 April, then the best Richard might manage would be to catch up with the Ryal party before it entered London; as he'd have to, somehow, make up those 25 miles. If, OTOH, Rivers' party was still passing through Weedon Bec, then it was obvious, as horses lack headlights, the Royal party would likely be stopping for the night at Towcester. So, I have Richard in Northampton, first receiving the scout's report about Rivers and then meeting Buckingham. Then, as soon as there was enough light to travel on the morning of 29 April, Richard and Buckingham head off to Towcester where they met Rivers (and likely ruined his breakfast, to boot!). Now the question becomes: What took up the daylight hours of 29 April so that neither party moved from where they were? Well, if the principals are separated by an hour's trip each way, and some sort of negotiations are ongoing, that could easily consume the morning. All the reports have Richard actually meeting Rivers on 29 April; none so far as I know, give any time frame. And here is where I think that ambush may have entered the picture. In Northampton Richard and Buckingham are preparing to meet with Rivers and, so they presume, Edward. However, at Towcester, Rivers is dispatching his nephew to Stony Stratford and does so before he meets with Richard. Rivers then tells Richard he can see the king the next morning at Stony Stratford. Why? Was it because the road from Northampton to Stony Stratford runs right past Grafton Regis? Was it to give Rivers time to get enough men over to Grafton Regis before Richard rode past? Because no matter how much effort I put into it, I simply cannot come up with any reason for Rivers to separate himself from his nephew  unless he was using his nephew as bait. It also means, and Richard may have known this, there's a good likelihood Edward was still at Towcester while Rivers was conferring with RIchard. If Richard did knew Edward was, at that time, in Towcester (possibly due to the scout having seen the Royal banner?), he'd certainly have wondered why Rivers was sending the king to stay the night at Stony Stratford. It would also mean Rivers was dividing his forces, not a wise move. If Edward was at Stony Stratford, then a large number of men would also have to be there to guard him. And by be there, I mean at Stony Stratford. If not as many as 500, then certainly 100-200. Then there'd be the men detached to Grafton Regis and environs to carry out the ambush. As Constable (and prospective Protector) going to his first meeting with the new king, Richard would certainly have an escort, but it wouldn't likely include the entire force he'd brought with. After all, he's going to see the king, not to battle. The same reasoning would apply to any escort Buckingham had, so we're looking at something on the order of 100 men, possibly less, riding along with Richard and Buckingham. The major element of an ambush is surprise, rather than numbers. While Richard and Buckingham would likely be preceded by riders carrying banners, they'd still be in the front. They'd also be easily identifiable. All that would be required of the ambushers would be for them to, briefly, separate Richard and Buckingham from their escorts and cut them down while a larger group of men engaged Richard's and Buckingham's escort. I briefly considered the possibility of the ambushers being split into two groups, one at Grafton Regis to attack Richard and Buckingham, and a second posted somewhere between the village of Alderton and the road leading from Northampton to Grafton Regis. Unfortunately, I can't come up with any way to synchronize the attack so that the group attacking from the rear does so just as the group from Grafton Regis rides out. However, the motoring atlas map shows a fork in the road leading from Grafton Regis to the Northampton road. If that fork existed in 1483, then perhaps the plan was to attack the rear of Richard's party with one group, while the second group took the other fork and attacked Richard and Buckingham? Thus, the attack on the rear would be launched and, literally, as soon as the fighting started at the end of the northern fork, the attackers taking the southern fork would make their charge. Time enough for the escort to be disorganized, but not enough time for Richard to head back to lead the fight. At any rate, that's the best I can come up with. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-25 04:55:59
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: I think we may have missed something else too. The road to Stony Stratford and the A5 from Northampton takes you through Grafton Regis. So was the Woodville plan to ambush Richard at Northampton or whilst he was with them going through Grafton? Remember EW originally wanted AW to bring a 'large army' but Hastings dissuaded her. Doug here: If the sources are correct, on the morning of 29 April, Richard was in Northampton, Rivers had gone back to his camp (likely Towcester as you suggested) and, seemingly, Edward was at Stony Stratford. If Rivers merely wanted to capture Richard, all he'd have to do would be invite Richard to dinner and surround him while they ate. However, the sources also say that Rivers dined with Richard, leading to the conclusion Rivers rode to Northampton. It was also at that dinner, if I remember correctly, that Rivers told Richard he could see Edward the next day at Stony Stratford. So, personally, I'm going for the idea that Rivers intended something to happen to Richard as he traveled from Northampton to Stony Stratford, most likely something fatal. But Richard threw a monkey wrench into Rivers' plans by showing up on the morning of 20 April, not at Grafton Regis, but at Rivers' camp, where he arrested Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. Even as Constable, Richard would have needed a reason to arrest that trio. The contents of the discussion between Richard and Rivers on 29 April may have given Richard what he considered sufficient reason. Perhaps it was, not from Buckingham, but during those discussions that Richard first learned of the plans for a hurried coronation? Then add to that Rivers saying Richard could see Edward at Stony Stratford on the 30th. I can certainly imagine Richard asking himself why did Rivers send Edward to Stony Stratford? Why did Rivers separate himself from his charge, the most important person in the realm? Why does Rivers want Richard only to meet with Edward at Stony Stratford? The military side of Richard takes over, he sends someone to scout out the road leading to Stony Stratford and is brought the information that large numbers of men are moving towards Grafton Regis. Which is why, on the morning of 20 April, Richard didn't go to Stony Stratford and instead went to Rivers' camp and arrested Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. Hilary continued: I'm beginning to think a trap was being set for Richard, in fact at one point Ross says it's possible that EW notified him of Edward's death. That way she could have better control of his movements because she knew he would act in a conventional fashion i.e. hold a service and then leave - which he did. There would then be time to let AW know and to move because he had less distance to cover. Doug here: Well someone informed Richard of his brother's death and EW is as good a choice as any. I can also see her informing Richard there's no need for him to hurry (using the medieval equivalent, of course). After all, why should he? The country was at peace, foreign relations were, on the whole, good; so, other than being London for his nephew's coronation, there wasn't any reason for Richard to hurry. This really isn't off-topic, but does anyone know how widely celebrated St. George's Day was in 15th century England? Could it be that Rivers celebrating that holy day wasn't him being dilatory, but just doing what everyone else was doing? Including, say, Richard? Because, as I mentioned in another post, if Rivers left Ludlow on the same day Richard left York, and both traveled at the same speed, Rivers would be arriving in Dunstable, a full 25 miles of Richard, who'd just be arriving in Northampton. Hilary continued: We don't know how many men both sides had. The 2,000 is an estimate of a medieval 'small army' and sometimes it's thought the size of armies has been exaggerated. We do know Richard didn't bring that many because he was asking for aid from York a few weeks' later. So he probably didn't know when he left York. Doug here: I always wondered about those numbers! And I agree that Richard hadn't any idea of what the Woodvilles were up to when he left York. Of course, as he made his way south, he might have encountered a messenger headed north... Hilary concluded: So who let him know what was going on? Buckingham? Well that explains why he turned up. Or Hastings? Or even Thomas Stanley - who isn't one of those listed as being a member of 'the Council'? Doug here: What do you think of the idea that Richard had no idea about the plans for a quickie coronation until he met up with Buckingham at Northampton? And Buckingham not knowing until after he'd joined Rivers' party somewhere along Watling Street? Then again, Hastings might have dispatched the above-mentioned messenger, hoping not only to forestall the Woodvilles' plans, but also to improve his standing with Richard. Stanley may not be listed as a Council member, but this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby has him being Lord Steward of the King's Household under Edward IV as well as a regular member of the Council; while, if this link is accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Steward the Lord Steward was the premier position in the King's Household. It did cross my mind that the reference in the one article about the Lord Steward being a regular member of the Council didn't confuse this position with that of Lord High Steward. I don't see how Buckingham could have learned of the Woodvilles' plans before he possibly began tagging along with Rivers. There is the possibility, of course, that his wife, Catherine, had been informed, with idea being she could convince her husband to support the Woodvilles, but that's awfully remote, I think. Stanley does deem to be the type who'd want a balance on the Council, if only to increase his own influence but, if he wasn't a member, that idea goes down too. Which leaves Hastings as the most likely candidate for sending a message to warn Richard. I think. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-25 05:07:02
Doug Stamate
Hilary wrote: Doug you should be able to buy from Amazon UK. I did when I was in Australia. Doug here: Supposedly, my credit allows for purchases in foreign currencies, automatically translating pounds, euros, whatever into the equivalent in U.S. dollars. Guess I'll get a chance to try it out! Hilary concluded: Re the point about numbers of old Lancastrians, to realise how many there were you need to look at HT's list of reversed attainders in his first Parliament. Even if the people were dead (and some of these were) attainders carried on in their family. So these are people or children of people who fought on the wrong side at Barnet, Tewkesbury, Towton, you name it. Yes, there was an awful lot of brewing resentment out there which Edward had probably become too ill or too lazy to notice. They far outnumber Edwardian Yorkists, of whom I've yet to find one good example who is not related to the Woodvilles. H (And I'd have to add, when Richard attainted even more after the rebellions this didn't help either, though only about a quarter went on to fight him at Bosworth)  Doug here: Perhaps that's where Buckingham goofed? If he wanted to divert the rebellion from restoring Edward V to placing himself on the throne, he should have started much sooner, shouldn't he? The resentment may have been there but, as you noted with those who turned out to fight against Richard in 1485, they still needed to be organized to be effective. I've always used Edwardian Yorkists as a sort of shorthand for those who might oppose Richard, but weren't obviously old Lancastrians or Woodville supporters. Apparently I needn't have bothered! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-25 09:47:05
ricard1an
With regard to Buckingham knowing about the plans for the coronation, in his book "The Death of Edward IV" Richard Collins suggests that Buckingham might have been involved in the Woodville plot because his home at Brecon Castle was quite near to Ludlow. So he and Rivers could have been contacting one another. Just another suggestion to put into the mix!
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebe

2018-01-25 13:06:07
Nicholas Brown

I'll be back a bit later with some comments on Buckingham. I'm a bit behind. I couldn't find the book listed on AmazonUK, so I hope you managed to buy it.
Nico


On Thursday, 25 January 2018, 05:07:05 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Doug you should be able to buy from Amazon UK. I did when I was in Australia. Doug here: Supposedly, my credit allows for purchases in foreign currencies, automatically translating pounds, euros, whatever into the equivalent in U.S. dollars. Guess I'll get a chance to try it out! Hilary concluded: Re the point about numbers of old Lancastrians, to realise how many there were you need to look at HT's list of reversed attainders in his first Parliament. Even if the people were dead (and some of these were) attainders carried on in their family. So these are people or children of people who fought on the wrong side at Barnet, Tewkesbury, Towton, you name it. Yes, there was an awful lot of brewing resentment out there which Edward had probably become too ill or too lazy to notice. They far outnumber Edwardian Yorkists, of whom I've yet to find one good example who is not related to the Woodvilles.. H (And I'd have to add, when Richard attainted even more after the rebellions this didn't help either, though only about a quarter went on to fight him at Bosworth)  Doug here: Perhaps that's where Buckingham goofed? If he wanted to divert the rebellion from restoring Edward V to placing himself on the throne, he should have started much sooner, shouldn't he? The resentment may have been there but, as you noted with those who turned out to fight against Richard in 1485, they still needed to be organized to be effective. I've always used Edwardian Yorkists as a sort of shorthand for those who might oppose Richard, but weren't obviously old Lancastrians or Woodville supporters. Apparently I needn't have bothered! Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-25 13:31:51
Hilary Jones
Doug, You raise a lot of interesting points to which I too will respond later.
I think the young Edward was possibly sent to Stony Stratford as a decoy.
If you look at a map, again, you'll see that the main road south from Northampton to Stony Stratford passes through Grafton Regis.It might have been hard to arrest Richard if AW had young Edward along too. After all, he might actually have preferred Richard. The same road today crosses the M1 and goes through Roade (where there's the Elizabeth Woodville School) and on through Grafton, cuts across the A5 (which now by-passes Milton Keynes) and on to Stony Stratford. Now if Rivers arrested Richard he could drop him off at Grafton, how convenient, and then carry on and pick up young Edward explaining that Richard was a traitor.
Trouble is, Richard had travelled that route for years. He'd know you had to go through Grafton to reach the A5 unless he came in north of Northampton and joined it at Weedon. The whereabouts of Edward and the strange act of leaving him there must have alerted him to something, even if he hadn't been alerted en route (remember his messenger system). My money too would be on Hastings. The suggestion of AW having a large army escort might have confirmed his suspicions. Did AW too know that Richard had been alerted? Which is why they do this strange dance before it all comes out into the open.
One small thing about Richard's Constable job. Yes he'd been made that for life, but that was by Edward. Edward's power only lasted as long as his own life (which is why the last act at even current sovereigns' burials is the Lord Chancellor breaking his rod of office and throwing it on their coffin). So it could be challenged that Richard was no longer Constable until this at been re-affirmed by the Council. If I were AW I'd use that excuse. H


On Thursday, 25 January 2018, 04:56:05 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: I think we may have missed something else too. The road to Stony Stratford and the A5 from Northampton takes you through Grafton Regis. So was the Woodville plan to ambush Richard at Northampton or whilst he was with them going through Grafton? Remember EW originally wanted AW to bring a 'large army' but Hastings dissuaded her. Doug here: If the sources are correct, on the morning of 29 April, Richard was in Northampton, Rivers had gone back to his camp (likely Towcester as you suggested) and, seemingly, Edward was at Stony Stratford. If Rivers merely wanted to capture Richard, all he'd have to do would be invite Richard to dinner and surround him while they ate. However, the sources also say that Rivers dined with Richard, leading to the conclusion Rivers rode to Northampton. It was also at that dinner, if I remember correctly, that Rivers told Richard he could see Edward the next day at Stony Stratford. So, personally, I'm going for the idea that Rivers intended something to happen to Richard as he traveled from Northampton to Stony Stratford, most likely something fatal. But Richard threw a monkey wrench into Rivers' plans by showing up on the morning of 20 April, not at Grafton Regis, but at Rivers' camp, where he arrested Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. Even as Constable, Richard would have needed a reason to arrest that trio. The contents of the discussion between Richard and Rivers on 29 April may have given Richard what he considered sufficient reason. Perhaps it was, not from Buckingham, but during those discussions that Richard first learned of the plans for a hurried coronation? Then add to that Rivers saying Richard could see Edward at Stony Stratford on the 30th. I can certainly imagine Richard asking himself why did Rivers send Edward to Stony Stratford? Why did Rivers separate himself from his charge, the most important person in the realm? Why does Rivers want Richard only to meet with Edward at Stony Stratford? The military side of Richard takes over, he sends someone to scout out the road leading to Stony Stratford and is brought the information that large numbers of men are moving towards Grafton Regis. Which is why, on the morning of 20 April, Richard didn't go to Stony Stratford and instead went to Rivers' camp and arrested Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. Hilary continued: I'm beginning to think a trap was being set for Richard, in fact at one point Ross says it's possible that EW notified him of Edward's death. That way she could have better control of his movements because she knew he would act in a conventional fashion i.e. hold a service and then leave - which he did. There would then be time to let AW know and to move because he had less distance to cover. Doug here: Well someone informed Richard of his brother's death and EW is as good a choice as any. I can also see her informing Richard there's no need for him to hurry (using the medieval equivalent, of course). After all, why should he? The country was at peace, foreign relations were, on the whole, good; so, other than being London for his nephew's coronation, there wasn't any reason for Richard to hurry. This really isn't off-topic, but does anyone know how widely celebrated St. George's Day was in 15th century England? Could it be that Rivers celebrating that holy day wasn't him being dilatory, but just doing what everyone else was doing? Including, say, Richard? Because, as I mentioned in another post, if Rivers left Ludlow on the same day Richard left York, and both traveled at the same speed, Rivers would be arriving in Dunstable, a full 25 miles of Richard, who'd just be arriving in Northampton. Hilary continued: We don't know how many men both sides had. The 2,000 is an estimate of a medieval 'small army' and sometimes it's thought the size of armies has been exaggerated. We do know Richard didn't bring that many because he was asking for aid from York a few weeks' later. So he probably didn't know when he left York. Doug here: I always wondered about those numbers! And I agree that Richard hadn't any idea of what the Woodvilles were up to when he left York. Of course, as he made his way south, he might have encountered a messenger headed north... Hilary concluded: So who let him know what was going on? Buckingham? Well that explains why he turned up. Or Hastings? Or even Thomas Stanley - who isn't one of those listed as being a member of 'the Council'? Doug here: What do you think of the idea that Richard had no idea about the plans for a quickie coronation until he met up with Buckingham at Northampton? And Buckingham not knowing until after he'd joined Rivers' party somewhere along Watling Street? Then again, Hastings might have dispatched the above-mentioned messenger, hoping not only to forestall the Woodvilles' plans, but also to improve his standing with Richard. Stanley may not be listed as a Council member, but this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Stanley,_1st_Earl_of_Derby has him being Lord Steward of the King's Household under Edward IV as well as a regular member of the Council; while, if this link is accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Steward the Lord Steward was the premier position in the King's Household. It did cross my mind that the reference in the one article about the Lord Steward being a regular member of the Council didn't confuse this position with that of Lord High Steward. I don't see how Buckingham could have learned of the Woodvilles' plans before he possibly began tagging along with Rivers. There is the possibility, of course, that his wife, Catherine, had been informed, with idea being she could convince her husband to support the Woodvilles, but that's awfully remote, I think. Stanley does deem to be the type who'd want a balance on the Council, if only to increase his own influence but, if he wasn't a member, that idea goes down too. Which leaves Hastings as the most likely candidate for sending a message to warn Richard. I think. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-25 18:50:48
Doug Stamate
Hilary, Yes, Pardoners and doctors would be excellent ways of moving money around or sending messengers, wouldn't they? I got so involved with the Northampton logistics because I couldn't see any reason for Rivers deliberately planning to meet up with Richard. Well, unless Rivers had the same attitude as represented by that claim of Dorset's that they were so powerful they could do what they wanted? Which is definitely a possibility, I suppose. As for Lord Thomas, I don't know. Apparently he was in London, he'd been Edward IV's Lord Steward of the King's Household and, again if Wikipedia has gotten it right, was with Richard at the capture of Berwick on Tweed in 1482. However, his apparent Yorkist leanings may have been solely because, for twenty years, the Yorkists were in power? I know many of us have tended to view his wife as the spider in the web, but what if that term really should be applied to Lord Thomas? His web would have been the Stanley properties and position in northwest England and Lord Thomas' duty, as he may have seen it, was to maintain and if possible increase those properties and that position. So, perhaps a Yorkist sympathizer, but still not unwilling to switch sides if such an action would be of enough benefit? A really good biographer would be nice, but I sort of doubt he'd have left enough of a paper trail to make one possible! Doug Hilary wrote: And of course William Davy, executed for the 'Tower break-in' was a Pardoner. For the rest see my later posts on the Richard/Rivers logistics. BTW I'm still interested to know what Sir Thomas was doing during all this. He is both familiarly and geographically close to Bucks (and that goes long before MB). And he did end up with a pretty good post under Richard, who hadn't had the opportunity to test his loyalty, unlike those who served with him in Scotland. As we well know, the Stanleys were always 'chancers'.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Dis

2018-01-25 19:14:01
Doug Stamate
Mary, I wondered about that other route and the only reason I can imagine for not taking it might have been gaps between the remains of the old Roman roads that the medieval roads were based on. There had been a Roman road from Ludlow (I doubt it was called that, though) to Shrewsbury and another from there to London and apparently it was kept up (as well as local labor and materiel allowed) FWIW , that Roman road from Ludlow to Shrewsbury also went south from Ludlow, to Caerlon, before heading up the west bank of the Severn to Gloucester. From there it would have only been a short trip to Cirencester to connect with the Icknield, follow it to Dunstable and then to London. I can think of two possible reasons for not using that latter route. The first would be that the condition of the road/s may have been much worse than the northern route. I spent two springs in modern-day Gloucestershire and can attest to the amount of rain that falls! I missed the big floods, but we still had flooded roads, streets, fields and streams. What would it have been like trying to move 2000 men across a boggy landscape? Or, worse yet, have to do what Buckingham later did, and head north to the Severn's headwaters to find a passable crossing? Nope, if there's a risk of having to head north before being able to head east, then one might as well head north from the start. I also considered the necessity of mustering those men at some point where the local economy wouldn't be stripped bare by sheer numbers. Shrewsbury seemed a better spot than, say Hereford or Gloucester (although it's not unlikely some men from Hereford joined up via Ludlow). Doug Who almost forgot to thank you for the compliments! Mary wrote: Until this discussion started I have always accepted that Richard and Rivers met at Northampton and Buckingham turned up too. I didn't really look at the geography you just accept what you have been told by people who have previously researched the situation. Thank you Doug for looking outside the box and yes it is important to ask who was doing what and where they were doing it. If Rivers had been above board surely they wouldn't have met at Northampton. If he was just trying to get Edward to London quickly to hold the Coronation before Richard got there surely he would have taken the Kidderminster, Bromsgrove, Banbury route. There must have been an ulterior motive in meeting at Northampton.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-01-26 11:38:27
Nicholas Brown
Doug: It would also be a challenge to Richard as Constable, wouldn't it? And Woodville's position as tutor/guardian of the Prince of Wales had ceased on the death of Edward IV, while Richard's appointment as Constable was for Richard's life (unless/until the new king wished to appoint someone else).At any rate, if we view a possible attempt by Woodville to prevent Richard from taking custody of Edward as the event that alerted Richard the Woodvilles planned some sort of hanky-panky and follow it up with Buckingham telling Richard, after Rivers & Co. had departed for the night, that a hurried coronation was planned for 3/4 May, even if Richard's authority as Protector had still to be accepted by the Council, his position as Constable still gave him the authority to detain Rivers & Co.Hilary: One small thing about Richard's Constable job. Yes he'd been made that for life, but that was by Edward. Edward's power only lasted as long as his own life (which is why the last act at even current sovereigns' burials is the Lord Chancellor breaking his rod of office and throwing it on their coffin). So it could be challenged that Richard was no longer Constable until this at been re-affirmed by the Council. If I were AW I'd use that excuse. H

Hilary made an interesting point about the ceremony after the monarch dies symbolizing the end of one era, but surely these positions continue until the council had an opportunity to reaffirm them. Otherwise there would be great potential for total anarchy. The lapse between on king dying and the coronation of another was a vulnerable time, so it would be best for the Constable's powers to arrest troublemakers would remain in force. Of course, his position might have to be reaffirmed, but wouldn't the composition of the Council have to be reaffirmed too? If AW could argue that Richard no longer had any authority as Constable, the surely an authority he had over E5 had also expired. So, it would be best for him to accept Richard's interim authority, but work behind the scenes to alienate him from the Council. It makes sense that E5 moving on to Stony Stratford with troops as well as news of a rushed coronation could have alerted him to trouble.


Doug: Other than placing her sister in the primary spot, I'd be tempted to list the order of those who'd been told by Eleanor as: her sister Elizabeth, her niece Elizabeth and then her brother Humphrey, and then possibly Anne Beauchamp. All the while reserving the idea that Stillington's proof consisted of something he'd been told either in the Confessional or on a death-bed. That last would have had enough importance on its' own to justify further inquiries, wouldn't it?
I certainly think that her brother and sister would be given priority. From the JAH book, I did get the impression that Eleanor was close to her mother and maternal aunts, which is where Buckingham comes in, as his mother was about the same age as Eleanor and lived near her. Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford died in 1474, so was alive at the time of the precontract, so Buckingham could have had second hand knowledge. I don't think he would have been asked to testify, as the brother and sister were closer to her, but he may have been able to confirm that he was familiar with the story, which may have led Richard to take the allegations seriously, and may have been a reason why he could have been targeted in a Hastings/Woodville plot.

I don't think Stillington's proof could have come from a confession, as the seal of confession remains inviolate even if the person who made the confession has died. According to Canon law:"The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason." The confessor is always an ordained priest, because in the Catholic Church only ordained priests can absolve sins; lay confession is not recognized. Any person who overhears a confession is likewise bound by the seal."Therefore, the proofs must have come from someone close to Eleanor, or a witness who had told Stillington, but who had not told what he knew as a confession.
Nico


On Wednesday, 24 January 2018, 20:42:14 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Until this discussion started I have always accepted that Richard and Rivers met at Northampton and Buckingham turned up too. I didn't really look at the geography you just accept what you have been told by people who have previously researched the situation. Thank you Doug for looking outside the box and yes it is important to ask who was doing what and where they were doing it. If Rivers had been above board surely they wouldn't have met at Northampton. If he was just trying to get Edward to London quickly to hold the Coronation before Richard got there surely he would have taken the Kidderminster, Bromsgrove, Banbury route. There must have been an ulterior motive in meeting at Northampton.


Mary