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.

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:

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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,

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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:

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:

Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-11 11:49:06

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:

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 :

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

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

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.

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

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:

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:

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

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:

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:

Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-26 12:26:00

Nicholas Brown

Doug: Much would have depended on the time of day for the escape, I would think. (re: tower escape)
I think I read that the escape was at nighttime on July 29 1483, but I can't remember where.

Doug: 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...So Morton judged the odds of success...and ratted.
I agree with you here. Even if , Morton was involved, he would have known that too many people knew that E5 was illegitimate and the he would never be viable as a King. As things stood then, the proofs would be very difficult to suppress, so Morton would need to do anything he could to distance himself from a plot that looked certain to fail. The Woodvilles and Hastings, otoh were desperate. HT, did manage to suppress Titulus Regius and the precontract story, but a lot had changed in two years, and after 1485 was about protecting the legitmacy of EofY. Henry won the throne by conquest, so his rights were not directly affected and significant figures on the 1483 council were now dead, while the remainder could be rewarded for their loyalty.

Doug: Richard would still need Hastings' support against the Woodvilles. If, OTOH, Richard became king, then Hastings' value disappeared.
I agree with that. Hastings may have known that Richard tolerated rather than valued him, and may even have always disliked everything he stood for. If Richard were King, Hastings probably knew he was on his way out.
This does bring me back to the Denham/Collins book. Obviously, I'm cautious about reading too much in from a seance, but while I would discount some things, others seem insightful. One striking part was when the medium said that Richard told him he had no regrets about executing Hastings because he was such a dreadful person. From what I have read about Hastings, I can see why Richard may have disliked him, but had to appease him in the early stages.
Nico

On Thursday, 25 January 2018, 13:38:18 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> 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: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-01-27 16:00:29

Doug Stamate

Mary, I had to look it up on the distance thingy on Google and got 50 miles as the distance between Brecon and Ludlow. Of course, nowadays that would be about an hours' journey by car. Now, if a horse's pace is the one termed walking, a man can keep up, can't he? So that would be about 5 MPH. Which means that at a walking pace it would take a horse and rider 10 hours to travel 50 miles. Anything faster, of course, would reduce the time, but not enough to allow for a reply on the same day, surely? Or have I miscalculated? For that matter, d o we even know where Buckingham was during this period? Because of the distance between the two locations, it certainly seems to me to be too far for Buckingham to just drop in for a friendly visit. Of course, that doesn't mean there couldn't have been any such visits, or exchanges of messages; just that if there were, the visits at least would have been something out of the ordinary. Messages perhaps not so much, but one would think there'd be some sort of record of continual to-ings and fro-ings of messengers between Brecon and Ludlow. Or wouldn't there? As for Buckingham being involved in the Woodvilles' plot, the question would be: Why? What did the Woodvilles have to offer Buckingham that would induce him to help them? If the Woodvilles' plan was, as I think it was, to get Edward to London as quickly as possible so as to be able to remake the composition of the Council, they could offer him some position on it, but which one? Perhaps it's me, but I can't see any office of importance going to anyone other than a dyed-in-the-wool Woodville supporter and, going by what information we do have, that certainly doesn't describe Henry Stafford. I hadn't thought of it before, but it's certainly possible that Buckingham was trailing along with Rivers & Co. all the way from Ludlow, having ridden there just for that purpose. Doug Mary wrote: 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!
--
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

2018-01-28 02:22:50

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote:
Doug, You raise a lot of interesting points to which I too will respond later.
Doug here:
No rush, I'm retired!

Hilary continued:
I think the young Edward was possibly sent to Stony Stratford as a decoy.

Doug here:
That was my thinking, although it's possible Rivers had Edward continue to Stony Stratford originally only with the intention of keeping as much distance between Richard and Edward as he could and the idea of an ambush only occurred to Rivers later.

Hilary continued:
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.

Doug here:
That idea would apply regardless of whether Richard and Rivers learned of each other's presence on the night of 28 April, presumably when both were settling in for the night, or the morning of the 29th, when both were preparing to start off on the day's journey. Rivers had to know, however, that once Richard was in such close proximity to Edward, the only way to prevent Richard from taking possession of the king, so to speak, was to capture or kill Richard.
My motoring atlas has a fork in the road leading from Grafton Regis to what is now the A 508; do we know if that fork was there in 1483? If it was, then men could be located in each lane of the fork, waiting for Richard. After he'd passed the first lane and was approaching the second, the troops would then surround Richard and Buckingham. A lot would depend on how large an escort accompanied Richard and Buckingham as to whether or not they'd put up a fight, but I doubt Rivers really cared whether they were taken prisoner or killed.

Hilary continued:
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.

Doug here:
Couldn't that strange dance be explained by Rivers not expecting to meet Richard? That's why I got so hung up with distances and travel time and especially wondered about how important a holy day St. George's might have been.
While we know the two first met in person on 29 April, we don't know when either of them arrived in the area. When exactly Richard arrived, I don't know, but as far as I can determine, Richard could have been there as early as the evening of 27 April if he'd made 40 miles a day. Or, he may have arrived on the 29th, just prior to Rivers setting off for that day's journey. However, it seems to me that the afternoon/early evening of 28 April makes the most sense for both Rivers' arrival and for Richard's. Regardless, I do think Rivers first learned Richard was in Northampton only on his stopping for the night on 28 April.
You mentioned Richard's messenger service as a source of information passing between people but, as Richard was also well-versed in military affairs, there's no reason to not suppose Richard also used his messengers as scouts. IOW, Richard, whenever he arrived at Northampton, immediately sent a scout, or more likely several, to Weedon Bec to discover if Rivers' party had passed through. When Richard received word it hadn't, he sat down to wait. The scouts would have been charged with two duties; first, report back to Richard when Rivers' party came into view and, second, inform Rivers that Richard was waiting at Northampton. And in the late afternoon/early evening of 28 April a scout reports to Richard that Rivers has arrived at Weedon Bec and has been informed of RIchard's whereabouts. I'm guessing here, but it seems likely that Richard would expect that arrangements would be made for his, Richard's, meeting with Edward on the 29th.
Rivers, OTOH, doesn't stop the night at Weeden Bec, but continues on to Towcester and even sends his charge on further to Stony Stratford. I seriously doubt Richard's messenger/scouts didn't keep Richard informed of Rivers' movements. Even if Buckingham had no information concerning the Woodvilles' plan for crowning Edward ASAP, Rivers' actions would themselves alert Richard that something was up. Once again, the scouts are deployed. Aaand it's back to logistics again:
I've searched but can't find any population statistics for medieval Towcester, but it does seem likely that, as he wasn't expecting to be attacked, Rivers may well have taken advantage of the villages between Towcester and Stony Stratford in order to billet his men. My atlas has the following strung out along the A 5: Towcester Paulerspury Potterspury Old Stratford Stony Stratford. We know Edward was at Stony Stratford and must certainly have had a guard with him sufficient for his protection and befitting his rank. So the presence of 200, or even 300, men with Edward wouldn't be surprising.
Towcester is also linked to Northampton by a road via Blisworth and Milton Malsor (today it's the A 43). However, both Paulerspury and Potterspury are, according to my atlas, linked to that road passing Grafton Regis; one to the north, the other a bit more to the south. Another possible means of ambushing Richard? More importantly, did Richard know? Again presuming Richard had men out as scouts, I can't see why he wouldn't have know how Rivers had deployed his men and may very well have had at least one scout observing each of Rivers' detachments. Observing, say, men leaving Paulerspury and Potterspury, and heading for the Northampton to Stony Stratford road? The road Richard would be taking in an hour or two to pay his respects to his new king?
Which brings me back to that meeting on the morning of 30 April when Richard arrested Rivers, Scales and Vaughan. I know I've read somewhere that, upon that trio's arrest, Rivers' men offered no resistance and quickly joined the forces led by Richard and Buckingham. Well, of course, they didn't they likely were out-numbered by Richard's and Buckingham's men! And, once Rivers' men had joined with Richard's and Buckingham's, there was no danger in Richard and Buckingham then proceeding along Watling Street to their meeting with Edward. The troops with Richard and Buckingham would have out-numbered any guarding Edward should they feel the necessity to dispute Richard's assuming the duties of Edward's official escort. They'd also likely out-number those men previously dispatched for whatever reason/s along the back-roads to the Northampton-Stony Stratford road.

Hilary concluded:
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.

Doug here:
I knew about rods/staffs of office being broken when a minister was dismissed by the monarch (Godolphin's dismissal ad Lord Treasurer by Queen Anne comes to mind), but are you certain the same actions being required by all such officers on the death of a monarch? I ask because it seems to me there might be a way for both of us to be correct. I did look around for information concerning the office of Constable and discovered it had been hereditary in the Bohun family until the late 14th century. Now, if something is hereditary, then surely it wasn't required that the monarch re-affirm the grant but, rather that the monarch simply not do anything. Then there's be the difference between occupying a position at the pleasure of the king, which certainly applies to your example of the Lord Chancellor, and a grant that would require positive action by the new monarch to change, such as Richard being made Constable for his own lifetime. Or am I grasping at straws here? Or perhaps better, broken staffs?
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

2018-01-29 11:46:40

Hilary Jones

Doug, Northamptonshire would have changed very little, apart from the passing through of canals and the railway. It's predominantly rural with narrow lanes - a lot still have 'passing places' where one car has to pull over and let the other through. The A5 itself is single carriageway until Milton Keynes. It's no better than the road from Banbury to Oxford, which Rivers should have taken. You mention the villages and the other road from Grafton Regis. If you take a left turn in Paulerspury, that is a couple of miles before you reach the crossroads to Stony Stratford (now a roundabout) it brings you out at that other road from Grafton, so AW could also have sent an ambushing party down there. BTW I've travelled these roads for years and never given any of this a thought.
I do think this illustrates either the naivety or the vanity of AW. Richard was a career soldier who from childhood had lived a life looking over his shoulder. Wouldn't he immediately ask why Rivers had gone miles out of his way to engineer a meeting at Northampton? Wouldn't he also wonder about the delay in taking the young King straight to London? Perhaps AW and his sister had got used to hearing disparaging remarks about 'little brother' from Edward and hadn't grasped that Richard had grown into a more accomplished leader than his brother. Charismatic people, like Edward, often brook no rivals, so Edward would have judged all Richard's successes as an extension of his own and both AW and EW would not have seen that much of the older Richard, particularly since the death of Clarence.

I do think your point about using the messengers as scouts is good. I would think it highly likely. In Scotland Richard had had the chance to hone his scouting (and spying) skills. H
On Sunday, 28 January 2018, 02:22:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-02-03 17:47:11

Paul Trevor Bale

Richard remained Constable, and the important thing to remember is that between the death of the king and the coronation of the next the most powerful man in the land was the Constable. So any attempt to remove him from his position, or his life, was high treason! The Woodville were well aware of this, in spite of Dorset's ridiculous statement.Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 3 févr. 2018 à 17:35, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> a écrit :

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

2018-02-04 13:48:50

Hilary Jones

Trouble is we only have two so-called contemporary records - Croyland (which was post hoc) and Mancini. The rest, as Ross says, is 'Tudor' history. None of this really adds up, does it? It shows how willingly we all repeat what is taken as truth by generations. Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H
On Saturday, 3 February 2018, 17:29:44 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Mary

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

2018-02-04 18:08:57

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective.. Doug here: If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors. Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will. Hilary concluded: Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable. Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him. Doug here: Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question. Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council... Doug Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-04 18:49:08

Stephen

Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council....
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?

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

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

2018-02-05 10:25:22

Hilary Jones

I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.
Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.
A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.
BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H
On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council.....
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?

--
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

2018-02-05 10:49:05

CM O

Hilary wrote:

"Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H"

Just popping up in this very interesting discussion to say that William Hobbys was actually the doctor Edward sent on the Scottish campaign. He specifically charged Hobbys with tending to Richard, which in light of what we now know about Richard's scoliosis is intriguing in hindsight.

But your point remains, since Hobbys continued to serve as Richard's doctor after Richard became king. He was a very long-established servant of the house of York, so if Richard was worried about his son's health then we might expect him to put Hobbys on the case. There's no indication that he did. Despite the subsequent and persistent "sickly child" narrative, I get the impression that Edward of Middleham's death was sudden and took everyone by surprise.

Cathy

From: <> on behalf of Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2018 8:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Mary

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

2018-02-05 11:39:09

Paul Trevor bale

I have no idea from where the sickly child idea about Edward of Middleham came from, but it annoys me intensely. The reaction of his parents to the news of his death shows how unexpected and shocking it was. And more than anything else, had Edward been weak or sickly Richard would not have put him through his inauguration as Prince of Wales ceremony, a long and tiring event for anybody, let alone a young boy. King Richard would not have wished to publicly display any weakness in the future of the House of York. Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 févr. 2018 à 01:21, CM O ottcm@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote:

"Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H"

Cathy

Mary

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

2018-02-05 11:54:12

Hilary Jones

Yes I do apologise it was Hobbys, silly me! Nice to have your input. H
On Monday, 5 February 2018, 10:52:28 GMT, CM O ottcm@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H"

Cathy

Mary

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

2018-02-05 12:05:42

Hilary Jones

You know your point about Hobbys caring for Richard is very interesting as you say.
Would it for example mean that people like the Woodvilles would know of Richard's 'illness' and think he wouldn't last long or be a threat? And could it also mean that Edward felt some guilt at sending Richard but was too ill himself to go? H
On Monday, 5 February 2018, 10:52:28 GMT, CM O ottcm@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H"

Cathy

Mary

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

2018-02-05 13:02:45

Paul Trevor bale

Oh please guys. If Richard's scoliosis was known about by anyone but those who saw him naked, and even then we don't know how it looked, Michael Phelps step forward, it would have been written about and used by anybody whose nose he got up, imaginary or real. Yet there is silence.

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 5 févr. 2018 à 13:05, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

Hilary wrote:

"Same as you say about Edward of Middleham being a sickly child. If he was that bad why wasn't Argentein sent? I seem to recall Edward sent him to the Scottish campaign? H"

Cathy

Mary

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

2018-02-05 13:31:11

Hilary Jones

Just found this Doug. Still catching up!
See my later post on the Russhes and Brecon.
Re our earlier conversations re the possibility of Stillington being a 'plant', I was looking at the Carents and noticed that Nicholas Carent, Dean of Wells, had also been Secretary to MOA. He might need watching, might he not and the two overlapped for about 3 or 4 years till he died in the late 1460s? Could that be a reason why Stillington was pardoned by Edward after the Readeption?
Re Pardoners, I agree, same with Necromansers - lovely name. Bit like wandering Friars and gypsies, go everywhere, hear everything. H
On Sunday, 21 January 2018, 17:12:40 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

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

2018-02-05 15:28:41

Doug Stamate

Hilary, If Russhe is such an unusual surname, it seems a pity John can't be linked to Robert! Did the attainder specify what type of merchant John was? It also occurred to me that, presuming the rebellion in October 1483 was instigated to re-instate Edward, he'd need someplace out-of-the-way to hide beforehand, and what better place than the wilds of Wales? BTW, why, if he was a London merchant, was John attainted at Brecon? Or have I misunderstood? It sounds to me as if William Benstede was providing for an illegitimate son; that Edward of unknown parentage. From the way you phrased it, I presume Edward's claims actually got him those estates but, somehow, he managed to do so without proving his parentage? Dodgy, indeed! Doug Hilary wrote: Just digressing a bit, but on the same topic, above there were actually two people with the surname Russhe indicted in 1484. The other was London merchant John Russhe, who was attainted for rebellion at Brecon. (Russhe Tower, Russhe Brecon, Buckingham?)Russhe in its many forms of spelling is quite a rare name at this time but I haven't so far been able to link them. We know quite a bit more about John Russhe though. This is because he came into the possession of the manor of Stambridge, and when he died in 1498, the ownership was contested by his wife and later his daughter. His wife was Isabel Stanley, daughter of Sir John Stanley of Elford in Staffs, a cousin of our two heroes and descendant of the High Sheriff of Warks/Staffs branch of the Stanleys. He didn't marry her though until 1490, when her first husband died (by him she was the grandmother of Bessie Blount). Now Stambridge had belonged for generations to the Benstede family from Benington Herts. William Benstede had been esquire to both Edward IV and Richard but he had no children. Whether he was in debt (which he was) or he didn't want his estate to go to his aunt - Horrox and Gill theorise on both but blame Richard for not paying him enough (!) - he sold £300 of his estates back to Edward and another £500's worth to Stillington in 1485. These are the Marylebone properties that Bray bought back from the Stillington family after the Bishop's death. Benstede died in September 1485 and his IPM awards his properties to his aunt, Ellen. However, they next appear with John Russhe, and after his death there emerges one Edward Benstede, who is knighted by HT and claims the estates and is married to Joyce Dudley, the daughter of Edmund Dudley. No-one has ever found a father for Edward Benstede. Another lovely example of dodgy property dealings. You asked me to let you know when I found some more, 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] : Buck

2018-02-05 16:44:29

Hilary Jones

Doug from the 1484 Parliament :

'Considering furthermore that those people whose names are written below were the leading and particular movers, stirrers and doers of the said offences and heinous treasons; that is to say, Henry, late duke of Buckingham, lately standing and being in as great favour, tender trust and affection with our sovereign lord the king as ever any subject was with his prince and liege lord, as was very well and publicly known by all this realm, not being content with this, or with the good and politic governance of his said sovereign lord, but full of rancour and insatiable covetousness; and also John, bishop of Ely, William Knyvet late of Buckenham Castle in the county of Norfolk, knight, John Rushe late of London, merchant, and Thomas Nandyke late of Cambridge, necromancer, being with the same duke at Brecon in Wales on 18 October in the first year of the reign of our said sovereign lord [1483], then and there falsely and traitorously, as false traitors and rebels, intended, conspired, plotted and planned the death and destruction of the most royal person of our said sovereign lord the king, and falsely and traitorously to ......'

Still working on the Russhes. But two in London both associated with Buckingham is a bit of a coincidence.
I don't think Benstede was providing for illegitimate offspring. I do believe he was in debt or wanted to stop his aunt inheriting. Viz:

Reference: E 40/726Description: Grant by William Bensted to William Parre, knt., William Paston, John Russhe, and Thomas Lovell, of the manor of Great Stanbrygge, which descended to him on the death of John Bensted, knt., his father: appointing attorneys to deliver them seisin of the premises. Essex
Note: Fragment of sealDate: 28 June, 20 Edw. IV
I do believe that Edward Benstede, husband of Edmund Dudley's daughter, was someone whose name had been changed to that, so that, like Joan Swete and the Romsey case, he could lay claim to the estates - which he did with the endorsement of the Crown. It proves once more that there was quite a career in inheritance claiming and in particular spotting what lines were about to die out. H

On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:28:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

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

2018-02-05 16:50:47

Hilary Jones

Just found that John Russhe was writing to William Stonor in 1480 about a lady's estate. Will pursue. we keep coming back to the same group of people, don't we ? H
On Monday, 5 February 2018, 15:28:47 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-05 23:15:03

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death. Doug here: I guess I have to disagree with Ross, then. If the Woodvilles could get a majority of the Council to agree to a Protectorate on the lines of the on Duke Humphrey faced, then there would have been no need for a rushed coronation, would there? A period of six to eight weeks between the death of a king and the coronation of his successor seems to be the usual, yet the Woodvilles were cutting that down to less than four weeks. They were risking angering all sorts of important people who could normally expect to play a part in Edward's coronation, why? Could I have been that, as a crowned king, Edward could, on the advice of his relatives, dismiss Council members and appoint replacements, thus changing the Council's composition to one more friendly to the Woodvilles? And, needless to say, establish just the sort of Protectorate that so frustrated the previous Duke of Gloucester? Hilary continued: Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law. Doug here: I wonder if such remarks as those attributed to Dorset weren't the result of anything the Council had already done, but more as a threat because the Council hadn't done what he wanted? It seems to me that the Council and its' members were a hybrid; a cross between a modern-day Cabinet and the upper reaches of the Civil Service. The Council wouldn't, usually anyway, be involved in decision-making unless the king asked for an opinion. However, in this situation, while there is a king, he's not only not in London, but he's a minor and has just inherited the throne IOW, the Council was making decisions that, they hoped, would meet with Edward's approval when he did arrive. So they limited their official actions to re-appointing judges and guarding against Louis XI, neither of which would have been particularly controversial. But notice what the Council didn't do: it didn't proclaim Richard as Protector. That would require Edward V's agreement, as his father's will, except for personal bequests, couldn't bind the new king's actions. Hilary continued: A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear. Doug here: I think the fact that the Council, as it was constituted on Edward IV's death, approved Richard's actions, is the reason the Woodvilles wanted Edward V in London and crowned. Because that would have given them the opportunity to reshape the Council into one that was more to their liking. Once Edward was crowned, any refusal to obey him, say in resigning a position on the Council, would be treason. The only option left to the opponents of the Woodvilles would have been to rebel and hope they could gain custody of Edward, running things in his name, if not with his complete agreement. IOW, back to the bad old days of Edward III, Richard II and the later portion of Henry VI's reign! Hilary concluded: BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. Doug here: It would certainly be nice to find out just where Rivers did spend the night of 29/30 April, wouldn't it? Of course, if Edward was being used as bait, then Rivers wouldn't want to be anywhere near him, would he? The more I think of it, the more I tend to believe that not only was there a plan for an ambush, but its' aim wasn't directed at Richard as, say, Protector-to-be, but at Richard as a figure around which an un-reconstructed Council could gather and frustrate the Woodvilles' plans. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-06 10:14:34

Hilary Jones

Yes I do indeed agree with your last point. Actual knowledge about who turned out for the Council seems quite vague and relies to an extent on Croyland I believe. Interestingly Bourchier didn't seem to be there and neither did Suffolk or Arundel, though they sent their sons (making it up again). Apparently Arundel claimed to be too old and ill to attend but he clearly recovered very well to play a full part in Richard's coronation and then betray him! One does wonder how much of all this was strategic. According to Mancini they voted against the notion of a full regency but agreed that Richard could be chief member of the Council in spite of a letter which Richard had sent to them and had circulated round London saying that he would not abuse his powers. Does anyone know of this letter? It's not referenced.
I think both these events, and the October rebellions, were serious strategic mistakes by the Woodvilles. They seem to have succeeded in building quite a body of support amongst their former gentry colleagues, dispossessed old Lancaster. That's what may have given them the confidence to act as they did when Edward died? Later, when King Richard set out on his Progress (and charm offensive) they might have realised that they had to act fast, or their body of support would start to erode. Richard had already shown that he wanted to woo the country not just London, he might also become more generous with old offenders. So regardless of boys in Towers they had to act then. Until for some reason Buckingham rashly waded in and upset the apple cart.
Whilst we're on the topic of the Council can I ask something about Stillington's revelation? Would one of the reasons he revealed it there be because he could only reveal it to a superior cleric and the two Archbishops were members? It might perhaps explain why it went to Council first? Just a thought. H
On Monday, 5 February 2018, 23:15:11 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-06 11:43:36

Bale Paul Trevr

On 6 Feb 2018, at 11:14, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
Doug here:I think the fact that the Council, as it was constituted on Edward IV's death, approved Richard's actions, is the reason the Woodvilles wanted Edward V in London and crowned. Because that would have given them the opportunity to reshape the Council into one that was more to their liking. Once Edward was crowned, any refusal to obey him, say in resigning a position on the Council, would be treason.

Still reminding you that Richard remained Constable, and the important thing to remember is that between the death of the king and the coronation of the next the most powerful man in the land was the Constable. Richard had assumed the powers of the king the moment Edward died. This is without doubt the reason for the Woodvilles to do all they could to get Edward to London and crown him before Richard could act.Paul

Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum

2018-02-06 12:23:45

Nicholas Brown

Hilary: Whilst we're on the topic of the Council can I ask something about Stillington's revelation? Would one of the reasons he revealed it there be because he could only reveal it to a superior cleric and the two Archbishops were members? It might perhaps explain why it went to Council first? Just a thought.
That would have been a good reason why Stillington went to the Council; if he did get the information from a confession; a combination of needing a superior cleric in addition to the subject of the confession being of national importance. However, I don't think that a report of a confession by itself would be sufficient for the council to endorse regime change. There must have been some further investigation to back it up and the desperate behaviour of Hastings and the Woodvilles suggests that what they learned was almost certain to be accepted.

Doug: If the Woodvilles could get a majority of the Council to agree to a Protectorate on the lines of the on Duke Humphrey faced, then there would have been no need for a rushed coronation, would there? A period of six to eight weeks between the death of a king and the coronation of his successor seems to be the usual, yet the Woodvilles were cutting that down to less than four weeks.
This asks the ultimate question for me about the Woodvilles: why were they so determined to push Richard aside to the extent of resorting to violence and a possible ambush? Was it just an unwillingness to share power with him or could Richard have something else on them that AW knew would lead to them being consigned to the wilderness? Richard had a quickly arranged coronation, but that was understandable under the unstable circumstances. I'm beginning to wonder if they had heard some rumours about the precontract, and all these unusual routes and indications of plans for an ambush were AW's idea of how to deal with it.

There have been so many insightful comments this week. I have been following, but too busy to join in. Good to see the forum thriving.
Nico

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 10:20:02 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-02-06 15:02:11

Doug Stamate

Hilary, I hadn't really considered Stillington to be a plant but, regardless, he would be expected to report what he heard, wouldn't he? Especially if my understanding that a bishopric was as much an office of the state as it was of the Church is correct? So the idea of Stillington being expected to keep an eye on Carent's activities certainly would make sense. Did Stillington abandon his see when Henry VI returned to the throne? If he didn't, perhaps that was the reason for the pardon? After all, besides being the Bishop of Bath and Wells, he was also Edward's Lord Chancellor. Perhaps Edward felt the responsibilities and duties of the latter outweighed those of the former? What caught my eye about pardoner was the reference to their often having large sums of money from the sale of indulgences and the like in their possession and that Margaret Beaufort's Attainder included references to her not only raising funds, but sending them out of the country. A Pardoner would be a good cover for such activities, wouldn't he? Or, if one wanted some ready cash to, say, bribe somebody in the Tower to facilitate an escape, while simultaneously not be directly involved, a Pardoner, with ready cash from those sales (presumably, anyway), could be a definite asset... Doug Hilary wrote: Just found this Doug. Still catching up! See my later post on the Russhes and Brecon. Re our earlier conversations re the possibility of Stillington being a 'plant', I was looking at the Carents and noticed that Nicholas Carent, Dean of Wells, had also been Secretary to MOA. He might need watching, might he not and the two overlapped for about 3 or 4 years till he died in the late 1460s? Could that be a reason why Stillington was pardoned by Edward after the Readeption? Re Pardoners, I agree, same with Necromansers - lovely name. Bit like wandering Friars and gypsies, go everywhere, hear everything.
--
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

2018-02-06 16:54:30

justcarol67

Hilary wrote:

"Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption."

Carol responds:

That was completely different, the restoration of a regime that the Yorkists had overthrown, not the continuation of the Yorkist dynasty. Both Edward and Richard were declared traitors by the new Henry VI/Warwick regime, a complete contrast to the brother of the late king and uncle of the new one who had the complete trust of Edward IV and had been appointed both Constable and Lord Admiral for life, as well as named Protector in E4's will. Far from being a traitor whose life was forfeit (as he was during the Readeption), he was the most important man in the realm--and AW, it appears, did not want him controlling both the realm and the new king.

Carol

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

2018-02-06 17:00:54

Stephen

I have both the Carson volumes to hand, including Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as Lord Protector and HIGH CONSTABLE of England. When I have a moment, I shall consult the latter in full, including the Henry V-VI precedent, but can be sure that they will confirm:
1) Edward IV's codicil named Richard as Lord Protector. NOBODY, even the Wydevilles, contradicted this; they just tried to limit his powers.
2) The Constable's powers survived one monarch into the reign of the next, as Paul has stated at least twice.
3) Logically, Stillington either witnessed the 1461 marriage as a Canon or was told soon afterwards by Edward. His promotion to the see of Bath and Wells comes within months of the bigamy at the first possible opportunity afterwards. It is unnecessary to invent a second, third or fourth priest to transmit any message to him by whatever means.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 05 February 2018 10:25
To:
Subject: Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re:Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

I can't get hold of Carson but I did go back to Ross. It was likely, he believes not unreasonably, that the Council summoned by the Woodvilles in the days after Edward's death would take for their model that set up in 1422 on the death of Henry V. That Council went out of it's way to curb the powers of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester, who had been named by his brother as Protector. It's an illustration of how the influence of a king as powerful of Henry V can be terminated by death.

Richard had not actually been named Protector, as many historians are eager to point out, and Dorset's statement about the power of the Woodvilles was in response to attempts by the Council to already start imposing such limitations. Ross cites Roskell who defines the role of the Council - 'they must act pending the appointment of a sworn council of the regular kind, not only as the king's advisers but as virtually constituting the executive'. And indeed they had already re-appointed the judges. So if the majority of the Council were on the side of the Woodvilles, then Richard's days as Constable were indeed numbered. For example, given that the Office put him in charge of the armed forces he wasn't involved in the measures taken by the Council for the defense of the realm against Louis XI. It's very difficult to say what is 'legal' in the circumstances since none of this was enshrined in Law.

A lot of people have Richard grabbing the King and executing Rivers as his way of surviving and taking over. But given the above, he couldn't have got anywhere without the approval of the Council. The fact that he did suggests that did endorse his actions. As for military action, it was actually Rivers roaming round the countryside with a hoard of Welsh soldiers, not Richard with his modest band from York - so no armed coup. Ross of course totally discards the Pre Contract in a sentence and, like Horsepool, puts it all down to Richard's fear.

BTW Doug, we have two versions of who babysat Edward. One has Rivers, Grey, Vaughan and Haute riding to Northampton, the other only Rivers riding to Northampton and the others being arrested when Richard got to Stony Stratford. In either case I find it astonishing that Rivers would leave such a prized charge with anyone. H

On Sunday, 4 February 2018, 18:49:18 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Correct.
Carson wrote in depth about this.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 04 February 2018 18:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hilary wrote:
Not if there was a significant change in regime Stephen. John de Vere took over from Richard during the Readeption. Some others, like Humphrey Stafford and Richard Woodville conveniently got themselves killed at just the right moment. The only real continuity was with the Bohuns with whom it was an inherited office. Like the succession itself, it was make it up as you go along. After all, what if Richard had let Buckingham live, would he have said the King couldn't take his Office from him? I suppose that this is an example of 'disappointment' but that is very subjective..

Doug here:
If I'm understanding the process correctly, it's not unlike a bequest in a will, isn't it? The main difference being that the bequest goes to the beneficiary while the testator, in this case Edward IV, is still living. However, as long as Edward is alive, he always has the ability to change that bequest, even if the terms of the bequest were for the life of the beneficiary. What matters in our case is that if, at the death of the king making the bequest [Edward IV], the beneficiary [Richard] continues in possession of it unless or until the new king [Edward V] makes any changes. Nor, again if I understand the process correctly, would Richard have to apply for any re-confirmation of his possession of the office of Constable, that was covered by his holding that office until his own demise; again until/unless it was revoked by the new king. BTW, am I correct in presuming that someone in possession of, say, the fees of a manor as a result of a grant by Edward IV, would have to re-apply for that grant from the new king? It does seem to me that it really boils down to those two things; how the grant of the Constableship was phrased and, presuming the phraseology was similar, what was expected of those who held grants such as fees from manors.
Although de Vere becoming Constable upon Henry VI's return was the result of a revolt, not death, changing the regime, the process was the same; a new king always has the power to change any and all such bequests, as well as any and all other appointments made by the previous monarch. However, until any changes were made, the old bequests and appointments remained in force. Just another example of at the pleasure of the king, if you will.

Hilary concluded:
Rivers would only have to claim that Richard had acted in a similar treasonable way, invoked 'disappointment' and the Council would have appointed another Constable.
Things like this are fraught with issues. For example you probably know Chief Justice Sir John Markham made a ruling that the King could not prosecute an individual for treason, because the King was the intended victim. Very sensible really. Needless to say Edward fell out with him.

Doug here:
Until Edward V revoked the appointment of Richard as Constable-for-life made by Edward IV, Richard would have retained that position's full authority and powers. Thus, strictly speaking, anything Richard did would have been legal, but whether his actions would have had the Council's approval would be a separate question.
Well, as long as the Woodville's didn't control the Council......
Doug
Who wonders if we have the exact wording of Edward's grant to Richard anywhere?

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

2018-02-07 12:35:49

Hilary Jones

I've found out a bit more on John Rushe. He was one of a long list of names in the CPR in April 1470 who were to have their lands confiscated for rebellion. Top of the list is our George. Rushe is described as 'yoman'. He crops up again in the Stonor papers describing himself as 'servant' to William Stonor and corresponding about - inheritance issues.
BTW that contested inheritance of Walter Romsey by Joan Swete which Edward upheld was no small thing. Walter's mother was Margaret Biset, the last of the Bisets and owner of the manor of Kidderminster. Manassees Biset her ancestor had been steward to Henry II.
And re Edward Benstede, there's one deed which calls him William Cowper (I think will have to find it again) alias Edward Benstede. Well Empson & Dudley were famous for that sort of thing. H
On Tuesday, 6 February 2018, 18:49:06 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote: Doug from the 1484 Parliament : 'Considering furthermore that those people whose names are written below were the leading and particular movers, stirrers and doers of the said offences and heinous treasons; that is to say, Henry, late duke of Buckingham, lately standing and being in as great favour, tender trust and affection with our sovereign lord the king as ever any subject was with his prince and liege lord, as was very well and publicly known by all this realm, not being content with this, or with the good and politic governance of his said sovereign lord, but full of rancour and insatiable covetousness; and also John, bishop of Ely, William Knyvet late of Buckenham Castle in the county of Norfolk, knight, John Rushe late of London, merchant, and Thomas Nandyke late of Cambridge, necromancer, being with the same duke at Brecon in Wales on 18 October in the first year of the reign of our said sovereign lord [1483], then and there falsely and traitorously, as false traitors and rebels, intended, conspired, plotted and planned the death and destruction of the most royal person of our said sovereign lord the king, and falsely and traitorously to ......' Still working on the Russhes. But two in London both associated with Buckingham is a bit of a coincidence. Doug here: If Rushe wasn't that a common name during this period, I'd be tempted to go beyond coincidence! There's also the question what was a merchant of London doing in Brecon, Wales? Unless he was associated in some way with the wool trade? Whatever, and unless he travelled all the way at the gallop, he was in the London area until around 11 October. Perhaps he was bringing information on the readiness of the rebels in the southern counties, with Knyvet doing the same for the area north of London? Where's a GPS tracker when you need it? Hilary concluded: I don't think Benstede was providing for illegitimate offspring. I do believe he was in debt or wanted to stop his aunt inheriting. Viz: Reference: E 40/726 Description: Grant by William Bensted to William Parre, knt., William Paston, John Russhe, and Thomas Lovell, of the manor of Great Stanbrygge, which descended to him on the death of John Bensted, knt., his father: appointing attorneys to deliver them seisin of the premises. Essex
Note: Fragment of seal Date: 28 June, 20 Edw.. IV
I do believe that Edward Benstede, husband of Edmund Dudley's daughter, was someone whose name had been changed to that, so that, like Joan Swete and the Romsey case, he could lay claim to the estates - which he did with the endorsement of the Crown. It proves once more that there was quite a career in inheritance claiming and in particular spotting what lines were about to die out. Doug here: So, if I understand it properly, this Edward Bensted was most likely not even a remote relation, but rather a ringer brought in to lay claim to properties? Tch, tch! Merry Olde England indeed! 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

2018-02-07 14:44:18

ricard1an

Sorry about this appearing several times. there was some difficulty sending it but I didn't realise that it had been sent several times
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hilary, You'd think the idea that Richard would assume escort duties for Edward would have occurred to Rivers as well, wouldn't you? And that makes me wonder even more about those 2,000 men Rivers gathered together. If a Duke's escort, whether royal or not, was 250 men, why so many for Edward going from Wales to London during peacetime? Surely 500 men would have been more than enough to ward off any bandits? Then there's that bit in the Croyland Chronicle that records Elizabeth Woodville as writing to her son (which one, Edward V or Richard Grey?) urging him not have more that than 2,000 men in the escort. Was Rivers planning an even larger escort? Not that I'm suspicious or anything, but could Rivers departing after having to celebrate St. George's Day been a cover for his assembling all those men? I may have to revise my idea that Rivers never expected or wanted to meet Richard while on the way to London. After all, odds of eight-to-one (2000/250), could very well be expected to overcome all sorts of problems. Doug Who also now wonders if Richard, in that 10 June letter to York, wasn't referring to the events at Northampton and not what eventually happened in the Tower three days later? Hilary wrote: Re your last point absolutely Doug. In fact I always thought it was a given that Richard would take over, with Rivers a few gallops behind. Little bit more information tucked away in a footnote in Ross. The average size of a 'retinue' to escort a duke was 250 men. Makes a lot more sense than 2000.
--
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: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-10 04:00:15

Doug Stamate

Nico wrote: I think you are right about that Doug. They were are afraid of losing the power they had been enjoying, especially AW and Dorset. If they had co-operated with Richard, they may have retained some relationship with E5, but on a reduced level, and he may have given them some privileges once they came of age. Either they were just very greedy or they knew for some reason that both Richard and the council would sideline them, so they resorted to desperate measures. Doug here: I get the impression that too many people who look at this period, and even write novels about it, don't understand how personal the power of a monarch really was. Parliament was only summoned at the king's pleasure, so it wasn't in any position to act as a counter-weight. The upper nobility had men, but rarely were united enough to force a king to do something he didn't want to do. So we end up with a situation where having some sort of personal relationship with the king is of, literally, inestimable value. Hastings was Edward IV's Lord Chamberlain and his friend. Either position gave him enormous power; the first by his control over who saw Edward, the second by his knowledge of Edward as a person Edward's likes and dislikes when it came to people or policies. Richard would likely have had the same access to Edward as did Hastings, but being stationed in the north, he had much less chance to make any direct use of his familial relationship. OTOH, Edward V was a minor and whoever had possession of his person could almost run the kingdom as they wished. As long as Edward retained all his royal power and authority and, more importantly, remained under the control of the Woodvilles. Nico concluded: The precontract probably did come as a big surprise. I keep having it at the back of my mind that EW may have known, but there isn't any evidence for it. If she did, I can't see her not telling AW. J-AH was speculating about Eleanor and the Duke of Norfolk and some other people being murdered by EW and the precontract being the reason. However, there doesn't seem seem to be any evidence that they died of anything other than natural causes. Doug here: Yes, it's exactly the responses of EW and AW to the death of Edward IV that cause me to believe they didn't know about the Pre-Contract. I just can't see Rivers shilly-shallying around in Wales, St. George's Day or no, if he knew there was a good case to be made that his nephew was illegitimate. Get Edward to London ASAP and get him crowned immediately in order to reshape the Council into a body that could label any revelations about Edward IV and Eleanor Butler as treason was their only hope. It wouldn't have mattered whether Richard presented himself to the Council as Constable of England or prospective Protector, any attempt by him to over-rule a king backed by the majority of his Council, and regardless of the king's age, would have been an act of rebellion. Regarding those deaths, and lacking any further evidence, I tend to go with the fact that coincidences do happen. 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: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-10 10:52:35

mariewalsh2003

If been sort of quarter following this debate.

There are just a couple of little things I'd like to contribute, if I may.

1) Regarding the date when news of Edward IV's death reached Ludlow. This was 14 April - we know this because Edward V wrote to King's Lynn on the 16th with the news, which he said "was shewed unto us the xiiiith daye of this present moneth".

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

3) The Northampton route from Ludlow to London is actually only about 14 miles longer than the southern route - if you check google maps, you'll see that Ludlow is actually slightly further north than Northampton. It was also a route which would take them through areas where Rivers had lands and influence and the ability to call on men. I imagine it was the route Rivers normally took if he was heading for London from Ludlow, and certainly a road he would have known well as the one linking Ludlow with his East Midlands estates.

4) Rivers was not young Edward's hands-on carer. His was an administrative role, and the surviving letters of his attorney, Dymmok, indicate that he only visited Ludlow from time to time (we don't even know for sure that he was at Ludlow when he heard of King Edward's death). I don't think, therefore, that he would have been in dereliction of duty in leaving Edward V with his normal carers at Stony Stratford for one night.

5) Is it possible that the real reason why Richard and the Woovilles were so jittery about each other has to do with Clarence's execution? I know some historians try to deny it, but there is evidence that the Woodvilles were felt by many including Richard to have been responsible for pushing Edward IV to execute George. That being so, Richard would have been afraid that, without Edward IV's protection, they would now pick him off too, whilst the Woodvilles would have been afraid that Richard would try to take revenge on them for his brother's death.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

7) The autumn rebellion had originally been intended to restore Edward V until word got round that he and his brother were dead. Crowland is quite clear about that. He also claims that Buckingham only came in at a late stage in the preparations. The rebellion may have failed in large measure because of the resulting confusion about its aims.

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

2018-02-10 10:59:00

Hilary Jones

Doug, 'our George' was Clarence - this was the Clarence/Warwick rebellion and John Rushe was listed on their side in the warrant out for their arrest.
John Rushe clearly knew Stonor, he was writing about Stonor's sister's inheritance and signs himself 'servant' but that might not have been literal - a bit like 'your obedient servant' as a courtesy in letters as you say. Still got more reading to do there. Although he's termed a 'merchant' he doesn't appear in a very good little book I've good on London merchants in the fifteenth century, so he probably procured stuff, like quite a few people and termed himself merchant at some point. People always seem to be importing wine! And he must have known the Staffordshire Stanleys to marry one of them. We know he's buried in All Hallows Barking, so perhaps I should look more in Essex.
The name Rushe has some peculiar variants, even Rowse, so I probably haven't stumbled across them all yet. I do wish organistations like the NA would do searches on name variations like a lot of the genealogy ones do. You can spend years looking for someone and then they appear in the variation of a name you've never guessed. Still we're lucky to have searches at all. h
On Friday, 9 February 2018, 18:08:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-10 12:24:09

Hilary Jones

Re your first paragraph Doug for my sins I am reading 'The English Parliament in the Middle Ages' which I managed to acquire for £2 - not a highly sought-after volume! It endorses what you say and, by Edward's second reign he is actually personally initialing those measures he wants particularly to see passed by the Parliament which he of course has summoned. This practice apparently continued. Incidentally it's another indication that he wasn't lazy at all.
And yes, the upper nobility were so fragmented and depleted that they weren't going to be producing any Magna Carta. In fact a lot of this is about the world having changed. We're entering the era of cronyism so beloved of the Tudors and so beneficial to the gentry.
(So when I read on a website that Parliament abolished Benevolences because Richard was trying to invoke them I was amazed. Some people will go far out of their way to discredit good that Richard himself did) H
On Saturday, 10 February 2018, 04:00:25 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-10 12:35:26

Hilary Jones

Thanks very much for this! There are lots of interesting points, particularly in that it challenges yet another assumption - that Rivers was at Ludlow. Could he have been at Grafton? As you'll see, thanks to Doug and his map we've been challenging a lot of what has come to be recited as fact- by Croyland and Mancini - and the roads between Northampton and Stony Stratford pass through Grafton and are ripe for an ambush to 'delay' the Protector.
I shall ponder on them more. There are so very little actual facts on which to construct narrative and some of them, like both the closest sources are likely to be tainted with bias and knowledge of what happened afterwards. Thanks again! H
On Saturday, 10 February 2018, 10:52:50 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

If been sort of quarter following this debate.

There are just a couple of little things I'd like to contribute, if I may.

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-02-10 23:47:05

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: Doug, 'our George' was Clarence - this was the Clarence/Warwick rebellion and John Rushe was listed on their side in the warrant out for their arrest. Doug here: (Speechless with embarrassment) Hilary continued: John Rushe clearly knew Stonor, he was writing about Stonor's sister's inheritance and signs himself 'servant' but that might not have been literal - a bit like 'your obedient servant' as a courtesy in letters as you say. Still got more reading to do there. Although he's termed a 'merchant' he doesn't appear in a very good little book I've good on London merchants in the fifteenth century, so he probably procured stuff, like quite a few people and termed himself merchant at some point. People always seem to be importing wine! And he must have known the Staffordshire Stanleys to marry one of them. We know he's buried in All Hallows Barking, so perhaps I should look more in Essex. Doug here: Here I was trying to imagine what he'd be buying to bring to London, rather than take out! Your mention of wine brought to mind that Kent is famous for its' hops which I presumed to be fairly portable (especially if dried?). So I looked up that topic and only to discover the West Country was also known for its' hops; thus ruling out trading in hops. I briefly thought I had something with a reference to the wool cloth trade, but that came just a bit too late. So, unless Rushe was dabbling in some variation of the wool trade, your guess about wine is the most likely. Whatever he dealt in, it seems to have been one that required some traveling; unless his being in Brecon was a one-off. Hilary concluded: The name Rushe has some peculiar variants, even Rowse, so I probably haven't stumbled across them all yet. I do wish organistations like the NA would do searches on name variations like a lot of the genealogy ones do. You can spend years looking for someone and then they appear in the variation of a name you've never guessed. Still we're lucky to have searches at all. Doug here: Rowse? As in the author, A.L. Rowse who, a check of Wikipedia informs me, was from...wait for it...Cornwall? 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: RE:

2018-02-12 06:09:29

Doug Stamate

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

Marie wrote:

Have you any idea why it would take four days for a messenger to get the news to Ludlow? Especially in view of the fact that it apparently took Edward's party four or five days to get to the vicinity of Northampton (25 April to 28/29 April)? I admit to being at sea in trying to explain it unless it was the time needed to prepare and hold a requiem mass?

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

Couldn't the required celebrations be attended to while en route? The Garter regalia itself could have been brought along, couldn't it? I'm presuming the St. George's Day observances included religious services, but were there any special requirements that couldn't be met during a journey? Requirements that would prevent them from just stopping wherever they were on the 23rd and carrying out the observance the next day?

2018-02-12 19:46:40

Paul Trevor bale

Has anybody mentioned the fact that royalty always travelled with an entourage, servants, soldiers, advisors, courtiers, hangers on, carriages as well as horses. That lot would never manage 50 miles a day, more like 10. Maybe.And the main guy from Ludlow was a stroppy teenager who now thought he was the boss!Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad
Le 12 févr. 2018 à 17:13, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> a écrit :

Regarding travel times. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor.. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.
A J

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

Marie wrote:

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

5) Is it possible that the real reason why Richard and the Woovilles were so jittery about each other has to do with Clar ence's execution? I know some historians try to d eny it, but there is evidence that the Woodvilles were felt by many including Richard to have been responsible for pushing Edward IV to execute George. That being so, Richard would have been afraid that, without Edward IV's protection, they would now pick him off too, whilst the Woodvilles would have been afraid that Richard would try to take revenge on them for his brother's death.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

Which means we have no way of knowing how accurate the quotation really is. Why am I not surprised?

7) The autumn rebellion had originally been intended to restore Edward V until word got round that he and his brother were dead. Crowland is quite clear about that.... He also claims that Buckingham only came in at a late stage in the preparations. The rebellion may have failed in large measure because of the resulting confusion about its aims.

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: RE:

2018-02-13 10:42:15

Hilary Jones

Hi AJ, the messenger service could make it so much faster because it was like a relay - I recall men and horses changed every 20 miles (Ross) - 200 miles in 2 days York to London. So yes it would take longer, depending presumably whether there were frequent changes of horse - but I doubt that for a retinue of 250. About 4 days I would have thought, if they were proceeding with some urgency. H
On Monday, 12 February 2018, 16:13:18 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Regarding travel times. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor.. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.
A J

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

Marie wrote:

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

5) Is it possible that the real reason why Richard and the Woovilles were so jittery about each other has to do with Clar ence's execution? I know some historians try to d eny it, but there is evidence that the Woodvilles were felt by many including Richard to have been responsible for pushing Edward IV to execute George. That being so, Richard would have been afraid that, without Edward IV's protection, they would now pick him off too, whilst the Woodvilles would have been afraid that Richard would try to take revenge on them for his brother's death.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

Which means we have no way of knowing how accurate the quotation really is. Why am I not surprised?

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

2018-02-13 10:57:17

Hilary Jones

Doug, on reflection during a sleepless night (sad) I attribute a lot of this perpetuated misinformation to the way History (and most Arts and Social Sciences) is taught in our universities. You see at first degree and even Masters level, although you discuss the validity of primary sources, you rarely get to lay your hands on them. It's about discussing the eloquence of arguments put forward by the 'masters' of their subject. In our case it would be Hicks, Ross or Horrox. Once you bung the name Professor in front of someone's surname they take on this 'Newtonian aura'. It's not done to challenge a Professor, only another Professor can do that. Watch Inspector Morse:) :)
So if you want to get your qualification you're not going to delve into Ross or Hicks's primary sources. They're the experts, you trust them, and they probably taught your Lecturer! So when, like Skidmore, or Licence, you write your own books you have no problem in using the same sources as the Masters - that was what you were taught to do. Real forensic History has a lot further to go and unfortunately Richard is one of the great victims here. It will take quite some time and some investigation to put things right. Just my view :) H
On Monday, 12 February 2018, 06:24:22 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE:

2018-02-13 13:39:30

A J Hibbard

Yes, I know that. I thought the question was how long it would have taken to deliver the news of K. Edward's death to Ludlow. That needn't have involved a large retinue. I was proposing that the time for a single messenger - with a few attendants? - to deliver urgent news might have been similar to the time it took Sir Richard Ratcliffe to travel from London to York in 1483. The question is how urgent was the news considered.
A J

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Regarding travel times.. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor.. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.
A J

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

Marie wrote:

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

5) Is it possible that the real reason why Richard and the Woovilles were so jittery about each other has to do with Clar ence's execution? I know some historians try to d eny it, but there is evidence that the Woodvilles were felt by many including Richard to have been responsible for pushing Edward IV to execute George. That being so, Richard would have been afraid that, without Edward IV's protection, they would now pick him off too, whilst the Woodvilles would have been afraid that Richard would try to take revenge on them for his brother's death.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

Which means we have no way of knowing how accurate the quotation really is. Why am I not surprised?

7) The autumn rebellion had originally been intended to restore Edward V until word got round that he and his brother were dead. Crowland is quite clear about that..... He also claims that Buckingham only came in at a late stage in the preparations. The rebellion may have failed in large measure because of the resulting confusion about its aims.

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: RE:

2018-02-13 14:55:58

Hilary Jones

Sorry, I thought we were still comparing times for Richard to travel from York to London and Rivers (if he was there) and Edward from Ludlow. I didn't look down far enough, sorry!
London to Ludlow via the routes then available was 141 miles, and I would assume that the messenger wouldn't divert another 20 miles through Grafton (unless Anthony was there and he had to be told)? Most of the route, if you go via the Thames Valley and Oxford/Banbury is quite good. The tortuous bit is from Kidderminster to Ludlow - I know it well, my car excitingly broke down on bend there. So I would say no more than two days if delivered by a lone messenger who changed horses. Or, if they used the courier system, just over a day. No retinue of course. But it would also depend on what things the Woodvilles in London would want to put in place before the news became widespread - and the stroppy teenager was invited to have his say. H
On Tuesday, 13 February 2018, 13:39:37 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Regarding travel times.. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London.." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor.. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.
A J

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

Marie wrote:

2) The Garter Statutes made it mandatory for members to stay put on St. George's Day to observe the feast in their regalia. Richard appears to have done the same thing at York.

5) Is it possible that the real reason why Richard and the Woovilles were so jittery about each other has to do with Clar ence's execution? I know some historians try to d eny it, but there is evidence that the Woodvilles were felt by many including Richard to have been responsible for pushing Edward IV to execute George. That being so, Richard would have been afraid that, without Edward IV's protection, they would now pick him off too, whilst the Woodvilles would have been afraid that Richard would try to take revenge on them for his brother's death.

6) There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost.

Which means we have no way of knowing how accurate the quotation really is. Why am I not surprised?

7) The autumn rebellion had originally been intended to restore Edward V until word got round that he and his brother were dead. Crowland is quite clear about that...... He also claims that Buckingham only came in at a late stage in the preparations. The rebellion may have failed in large measure because of the resulting confusion about its aims.

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

2018-02-13 18:16:03

ricard1an

I have to say I agree Hilary.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE:

2018-02-14 14:56:25

mariewalsh2003

Hilary wrote:

I know we're now not sure on what day Edward actually died but around 9 April seems to be accepted. So I agree, why 4 days, when a messenger (albeit well-practised) could get to York in 2 days? And I agree, who was accompanying young Edward - Haute and Vaughan? What worries me is that this wasn't a four-year old they were escorting it was a stroppy teenager. What would they have done if he'd said he wanted them to carry on to London? If Rivers wasn't with him it all seems highly risky. Was Rivers gathering in Northants the extra troops that Hastings reckoned he's dissuaded EW from requesting? He was supposed to have Welshmen in tow, so they would be from Ludlow?
Can I throw another one in, this time about the October rebellions?. John Rushe is obviously an associate of William Stonor, Gyles Wellesbourne is Stonor's ward. Stonor decides to rebel, presumably to support EW whom he knows? So why is Rushe, one of the few people plotting with Buckingham and Morton at Brecon, and why do Gyles and his brother play a part in hunting down and delivering Buckingham? And Gyles and brother get rewarded by Richard. It's like one of the Logic exercises that I once had to do which seemingly reaches no logical conclusion.
Marie here:1) Edward IV does seem to have died on the 9th. If More is to be believed, the death took place at night, and that may be so as the heralds' account of his obsequies and funeral says he died on the 10th (there was no agreed method for what time of day to change the date at).2) I worked out, once in the past, that a messenger setting out on 10th would have travelled 35-40 miles a day in order to reach Ludlow on the 14th. The post-horse system had only been set up to bring news to Westminster from the Scottish war front, so was probably not available to the messenger heading to Ludlow. It would hardly have been good form for the messenger to York to have travelled faster than the one heading for the new king. A messenger doing the same sorts of speeds would have reached York on 16th or 17th, which accords with the notice in the town records (on the assumption that the clerk accidentally missed the x off the date).3) Wherever Rivers was when Edward died (his last known whereabouts were Walsingham on 25 March), it's likely he went to take charge of the new king at Ludlow as soon as he heard of Edward IV's death, but perhaps the sources need rereading. The Dymmok papers suggest he wasn't often at Grafton, although he was having some building work done there. His manor of Middleton in Norfolk seems to have been a favourite, and he also paid visits to King Lynn and Norwich.4) Is it possible that Rivers felt he simply had to meet Richard at Northampton in order to prevent him smelling a rat and chasing after the royal party and overtaking it? According to Mancini Richard actually told the council when he got to London that Rivers & Co had plotted to ambush him (I can look up the exact wording if you like).According to both Crowland and Mancini, Rivers set out from Northampton with Richard and Buckingham in the morning, and was arrested with Vaughan and Grey. Richard and Buckingham then returned with the young king and the prisoners to Northampton (we know that is correct, even though it is only in Mancini and More, because Edward V wrote an extant letter to Cardinal Bourchier from Northampton).It is only later writers who have Richard place Rivers under house arrest in Northampton the night before the arrests at Stony Stratford.If there was an ambush, then it looks as though it had been Rivers' final task to lead Richard into it.5) It is only Christopher Wellesbourne who is known to have helped Richard during Buckingham's Rebellion. No known involvement by Giles, and no reward.

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

Wow Doug It just makes one ask more and more questions, doesn't it?
I know we're now not sure on what day Edward actually died but around 9 April seems to be accepted. So I agree, why 4 days, when a messenger (albeit well-practised) could get to York in 2 days? And I agree, who was accompanying young Edward - Haute and Vaughan? What worries me is that this wasn't a four-year old they were escorting it was a stroppy teenager. What would they have done if he'd said he wanted them to carry on to London? If Rivers wasn't with him it all seems highly risky. Was Rivers gathering in Northants the extra troops that Hastings reckoned he's dissuaded EW from requesting? He was supposed to have Welshmen in tow, so they would be from Ludlow?
Can I throw another one in, this time about the October rebellions?. John Rushe is obviously an associate of William Stonor, Gyles Wellesbourne is Stonor's ward. Stonor decides to rebel, presumably to support EW whom he knows? So why is Rushe, one of the few people plotting with Buckingham and Morton at Brecon, and why do Gyles and his brother play a part in hunting down and delivering Buckingham? And Gyles and brother get rewarded by Richard. It's like one of the Logic exercises that I once had to do which seemingly reaches no logical conclusion. H

On Monday, 12 February 2018, 06:09:43 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

First off, thank you for taking the time to put all this together! Of course, I do have some questions...

2018-02-19 17:02:57

Stephen

Anthony would have succeeded his father as Constable but refused the title as Carson points out (p.35).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 11:32
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

FWIW I've been looking again at the Coventry Leet books because I recalled that there was quite a lot of correspondence between the City and Edward Prince of Wales (Rivers) after he became their Lord on the death of Clarence. I thought if I looked at the dates of the letters and the replies to urgent ones it might give us a clue as to journey times.

Now Coventry, by old routes, is about 70 miles from Ludlow; that's roughly half the distance of London to Ludlow and the London end is much faster. On 11 June 1481 Prince Edward (Rivers) wrote to the Mayor of Coventry asking the city to provide soldiers for the King on his Scottish campaign. The City Council met and replied on 14 June and the Prince wrote back accepting their reply on the same day. Of course we have to rely on the letter's transcriber getting the date correct but it would indicate, I would have thought, that the messenger system, or something akin to it, was in operation before the Scottish campaign began and that news could be disseminated very quickly if needed?

Whilst we're talking about Rivers a couple of other points. How much do we think Edward IV actually liked him?

I raise this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as Carson mentions, he should have succeeded his father as Constable, if Precedent were to have been followed. And secondly, there's quite a bit of correspondence about riots in Coventry in the 1480s dealt with, as they should be, by Prince Edward (Rivers). On each occasion King Edward intervenes and lays down a much harder line - so the Prince has to write again acknowledging this. I wonder if this is the same tactic that Edward used to undermine Clarence?

A few more interesting scraps. In 1474 EW writes to the City in the King's absence (where?) sending it some venison and thanking it for the support of her son. Rivers's trusted messenger to Coventry is one John Isham. The Ishams are Northants gentry which shows that the Woodvilles did not lose track of their root support and no doubt the network of that root support. Finally, when the Edward IV asked for troops for the Scottish campaign he clearly at that point intended to go personally - it's virtually the same wording as he used for the French campaign. Does this endorse the assumption that it was illness that held him back? H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 15:47:00 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

AJ,
50 miles a day for a single rider sounds quite reasonable, especially as the rider would only be traveling during daylight hours and would have to stop and rest his horse (and himself) a couple of times during that period. Which also means that, presuming Edward left Ludlow on 25 April, he and his party averaged just over 25 miles a day. If those 2,000 men were with Edward from the start of his journey, they must have been pushing it to travel that far each day!
Why was there another celebration of St. George's Day at Windsor if Edward had already celebrated St. George's Day in Ludlow? Is Windsor where the celebration is supposed to be held? I know St. George's Day can be celebrated on a day other than 23/24 April, but I understood that was only when the celebration of Easter interfered.
Doug

AJ wrote
Regarding travel times. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since
3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.

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

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

2018-02-19 17:07:32

Hilary Jones

She doesn't say when or why, just one sentence. Doesn't surprise me though. He dodged pursuing Fauconburg. Anything that involved work! Though Ross writes a eulogy on his virtues :) Besides it might be uncomfortable having to pursue some of your old friends. H
On Monday, 19 February 2018, 17:03:02 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Anthony would have succeeded his father as Constable but refused the title as Carson points out (p.35).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 11:32
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

FWIW I've been looking again at the Coventry Leet books because I recalled that there was quite a lot of correspondence between the City and Edward Prince of Wales (Rivers) after he became their Lord on the death of Clarence. I thought if I looked at the dates of the letters and the replies to urgent ones it might give us a clue as to journey times.

Now Coventry, by old routes, is about 70 miles from Ludlow; that's roughly half the distance of London to Ludlow and the London end is much faster.. On 11 June 1481 Prince Edward (Rivers) wrote to the Mayor of Coventry asking the city to provide soldiers for the King on his Scottish campaign. The City Council met and replied on 14 June and the Prince wrote back accepting their reply on the same day. Of course we have to rely on the letter's transcriber getting the date correct but it would indicate, I would have thought, that the messenger system, or something akin to it, was in operation before the Scottish campaign began and that news could be disseminated very quickly if needed?

Whilst we're talking about Rivers a couple of other points. How much do we think Edward IV actually liked him?

I raise this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as Carson mentions, he should have succeeded his father as Constable, if Precedent were to have been followed. And secondly, there's quite a bit of correspondence about riots in Coventry in the 1480s dealt with, as they should be, by Prince Edward (Rivers). On each occasion King Edward intervenes and lays down a much harder line - so the Prince has to write again acknowledging this. I wonder if this is the same tactic that Edward used to undermine Clarence?

A few more interesting scraps. In 1474 EW writes to the City in the King's absence (where?) sending it some venison and thanking it for the support of her son. Rivers's trusted messenger to Coventry is one John Isham. The Ishams are Northants gentry which shows that the Woodvilles did not lose track of their root support and no doubt the network of that root support. Finally, when the Edward IV asked for troops for the Scottish campaign he clearly at that point intended to go personally - it's virtually the same wording as he used for the French campaign. Does this endorse the assumption that it was illness that held him back? H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 15:47:00 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

AJ,
50 miles a day for a single rider sounds quite reasonable, especially as the rider would only be traveling during daylight hours and would have to stop and rest his horse (and himself) a couple of times during that period. Which also means that, presuming Edward left Ludlow on 25 April, he and his party averaged just over 25 miles a day. If those 2,000 men were with Edward from the start of his journey, they must have been pushing it to travel that far each day!
Why was there another celebration of St. George's Day at Windsor if Edward had already celebrated St. George's Day in Ludlow? Is Windsor where the celebration is supposed to be held? I know St. George's Day can be celebrated on a day other than 23/24 April, but I understood that was only when the celebration of Easter interfered.
Doug

AJ wrote
Regarding travel times. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since
3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.

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

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

2018-02-19 18:36:55

ricard1an

I don't know if Edward didn't like Rivers maybe it was more that he didn't rate him in any leading roles. Did Rivers actually fight in any battles? If I remember rightly he said he was going on a pilgrimage when some battle was taking place and then he didn't actually go. I think he was involved in tournaments but presumably that wouldn't have set him up as a warrior knight.
Mary

Re: Buckingham's Rebellionandthe Precontract

2018-02-20 21:57:01

Stephen

She says that Richard was appointed in October 1469 after Rivers' execution on 12 August 1469. Rivers' appointment specified Anthony as his successor.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:07
To:
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellionandthe Precontract

She doesn't say when or why, just one sentence. Doesn't surprise me though. He dodged pursuing Fauconburg. Anything that involved work! Though Ross writes a eulogy on his virtues :) Besides it might be uncomfortable having to pursue some of your old friends. H

On Monday, 19 February 2018, 17:03:02 GMT, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

Anthony would have succeeded his father as Constable but refused the title as Carson points out (p.35).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 11:32
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

FWIW I've been looking again at the Coventry Leet books because I recalled that there was quite a lot of correspondence between the City and Edward Prince of Wales (Rivers) after he became their Lord on the death of Clarence. I thought if I looked at the dates of the letters and the replies to urgent ones it might give us a clue as to journey times.

Now Coventry, by old routes, is about 70 miles from Ludlow; that's roughly half the distance of London to Ludlow and the London end is much faster.. On 11 June 1481 Prince Edward (Rivers) wrote to the Mayor of Coventry asking the city to provide soldiers for the King on his Scottish campaign. The City Council met and replied on 14 June and the Prince wrote back accepting their reply on the same day. Of course we have to rely on the letter's transcriber getting the date correct but it would indicate, I would have thought, that the messenger system, or something akin to it, was in operation before the Scottish campaign began and that news could be disseminated very quickly if needed?

Whilst we're talking about Rivers a couple of other points. How much do we think Edward IV actually liked him?

I raise this for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as Carson mentions, he should have succeeded his father as Constable, if Precedent were to have been followed. And secondly, there's quite a bit of correspondence about riots in Coventry in the 1480s dealt with, as they should be, by Prince Edward (Rivers). On each occasion King Edward intervenes and lays down a much harder line - so the Prince has to write again acknowledging this. I wonder if this is the same tactic that Edward used to undermine Clarence?

A few more interesting scraps. In 1474 EW writes to the City in the King's absence (where?) sending it some venison and thanking it for the support of her son. Rivers's trusted messenger to Coventry is one John Isham. The Ishams are Northants gentry which shows that the Woodvilles did not lose track of their root support and no doubt the network of that root support. Finally, when the Edward IV asked for troops for the Scottish campaign he clearly at that point intended to go personally - it's virtually the same wording as he used for the French campaign. Does this endorse the assumption that it was illness that held him back? H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 15:47:00 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

AJ,
50 miles a day for a single rider sounds quite reasonable, especially as the rider would only be traveling during daylight hours and would have to stop and rest his horse (and himself) a couple of times during that period. Which also means that, presuming Edward left Ludlow on 25 April, he and his party averaged just over 25 miles a day. If those 2,000 men were with Edward from the start of his journey, they must have been pushing it to travel that far each day!
Why was there another celebration of St. George's Day at Windsor if Edward had already celebrated St. George's Day in Ludlow? Is Windsor where the celebration is supposed to be held? I know St. George's Day can be celebrated on a day other than 23/24 April, but I understood that was only when the celebration of Easter interfered.
Doug

AJ wrote
Regarding travel times. According to Crowland the posting system developed by Edward & Richard to stay in touch during the Scottish campaign could cover 200 miles in two days. However, a more realistic time frame appears to be the example of Sir Richard Ratcliffe carrying urgent messages from Richard to York when he averaged 50 miles a day for 4 days.
Regarding the Order of the Garter, the Statues of the Order obliged members to observe the Feast Day by wearing their regalia wherever they were. I do not think that the Feast was observed on behalf of the Order at York in 1483. Reasons are
1. The surviving records of the Order's chapters before the Tudor era show perhaps one example of the Order's Great Feast not being observed at Windsor.
2. Rous says "On the morrow of St George's day, after the accustomed service of the Knights of the Garter had been solemnly celebrated at Ludlow after the English habit, concluding with a splendid banquet, the young king removed towards London." (Alison Hanham's translation). This looks like an individual member of the Order observing the occasion since
3. Anstis's translation of the Black Book of the Order states:
On May 24, 1483, the Order of the Garter observed St George's Feast at Windsor. Anstis's translation of the Black Book reads(In the First Year of King Edward the Fifth, a Youth of a Disposition truly Royal, on the twenty fourth Day of May, Lord Dudeley empowered by the Authority of the King's Highness and Commission, held the accustomed Solemnity at Wyndesor, having Sir John Astheley to join with him.(The Sovereign was absent, being intent on the Solemnity of his Coronation and other weighty Affairs of the Kingdom.(The other Knights of this most excellent Order were not there, being either secured by the King's Protection, or probably hindered by other Affairs.

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

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion andthe Precontract

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-24 18:14:40

justcarol67

Marie wrote:

"There are no surviving council records for Edward and Richard's reigns, so that would explain why the letter to the council to which Mancini refers has been lost."

Carol responds:

The question for me is why they are missing. (Surely such records were kept, and Richard would not have destroyed them.) I can't see them just getting lost or misplaced, and there are no fires that would have destroyed only Yorkist records. That leaves HT or one of his underlings. (Polydore Vergil, who complained about the dearth of records for the period, would not have dared to destroy such recent records himself. It would have been a betrayal of the trust placed in him.) My vote is for Robert Morton, who was Master of the Rolls under the Edwards and Richard but lost his post after his uncle rebelled against Richard in September 1483. Henry VII reinstated him. Who better to know exactly where and what the records were, not to mention that he would have a personal grudge against Richard?

I can't prove it, of course. Just a theory. But a letter to the council would have been part of the council records and destroyed along with the proceedings of the council meetings.

Carol

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: {Disarmed} Re:

2018-02-24 19:20:29

mariewalsh2003

We don't have council records for Edward IV either, and only bits and pieces for Henry VII.

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

2018-02-24 19:46:37

Doug Stamate

Nico wrote: AW's Norfolk trip makes me wonder if he ever returned to Ludlow at all. He would have been at Walsingham for the Pilgrimage. March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation, was the beginning of the calendar year in the 15th century. I don't know whether there were New Year celebrations as such, but it sounds like a festive time when people might not rush back to work. Both Walsingham and Middleton are in North Norfolk, not far from King's Lynn. AW may have planned a few days to sort things out in Middleton, then move on to Grafton Regis and the Midlands, then onto Ludlow, if a trip to Ludlow was actually planned. I had always thought AW was based there, but it seems his visits were more sporadic. He could also have gone to London, and been there when E4 died, and then moved on to Northampton, and designated that as a place for everyone to meet, including men from his Norfolk estates to make up the unusually large number of troops, while Vaughan escorted E5 from Ludlow meeting AW at Northampton, then moved onto Stony Stratford. Doug here: Well, we know it took Edward V's party four days to get to the Northampton area and, unless he was moving much faster, the same likely would apply the other way around. Then add, say, another two days travel from wherever Rivers was in Norfolk to Northampton and he could have arrived in Ludlow about a week after hearing of Edward IV's death. If we allow a minimum of two days for him to receive that news, then the earliest Rivers could have been in Ludlow would have been 17/18 April. Which would have given him a week to arrange things before starting out on the trip back to London. However, everyone concerned, Richard as well as Edward's party, seems to have stayed in place between hearing of Edward IV's death and St. George's Day. Would preparations for requiem masses, and the celebration of them, have taken that much time? I know of nothing that would have prevented preparations for the journey to London being made simultaneously with any requiem mass/es being arranged and celebrated. Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip? FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
Nico concluded: I think AW would have definitely have preferred to avoid a meeting with Richard. He probably wanted to get all his tronotops together, meet with allies then move onto London to sort out the coronation, ensuring that he never lost custody of E5. I would assume that Richard would have assumed custody of E5 immediately as he was Royalty and Protector, and it would be natural to assume that a meeting between the too would be arranged as soon as possible. It must have looked strange for Richard to find AW taking care of business in Northampton surrounded by an excess of troops, with E5 and Vaughan in Stony Stratford. Since Richard was coming from York, AW could have assumed that he would stop in Northampton and that he might have to see him, but he would need to ensure that E5 was not around. These things alone look suspicious, but Richard and Buckingham may also have noticed something evasive about AW's manner when they met him. Doug here: Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered. Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting. We know Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, but we don't know where all those men were stationed, do we? We also know there have been rumor for centuries about a planned ambush and we also know Richard justified his actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford to the Council by stating there had been a plan to capture/kill him and Buckingham. How long would it take for Rivers to arrange for everyone, including Richard, to meet together at Northampton and then proceed together to London? Would those days when nobody seemed to be doing anything be enough? There'd certainly be time enough to alert Dorset of his plans, wouldn't there? So, while Edward in Wales and Richard in York are making preparations for requiem masses and their respective trips to Northampton to meet Rivers, and neither planning on departing until 26 April; Rivers is at Northampton gathering together men from his properties in the Midlands and Norfolk. Richard arrives in Northampton on 29 April only to discover that Edward isn't there, but instead is at Stony Stratford, over ten miles away. So the first question forms in Richard's mind: Why isn't Edward at Northampton? Not because the king should be where Richard could meet him, but because wasn't that where they all, including Edward, supposed to meet? Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford? Nor would it be expected that Richard and Buckingham be accompanied by their escorts. They would be calling on the king and would, of course, be accompanied by some men from their escorts, but not likely all of them. We have Edward at Stony Stratford with an unknown number of men, but possibly only those who'd made the entire journey with him from Wales. We have Richard and Buckingham in Northampton with their respective escorts, number together around no more than 500 men. This part is conjectural, but I think Rivers was also in Northampton and likely not accompanied by those 2,000 men. Why? Because of the ease with which Richard arrested him. There's no mention of any fighting; not even of Rivers putting up any resistance at all. With 2,000 within call? I've read many descriptions of Rivers, both laudatory and not, and cowardly wasn't among the adjectives. Which is why I conclude those 2,000 men weren't anywhere where they could help Rivers. Now this is also conjecture, but if there was anything close to 2,000 men in the vicinity of Northampton, the people of that town would know it. Especially if men had been trickling in over the previous week to ten days. They'd also likely know where those men were. And I can't see Richard, his suspicions aroused by Edward being at some small village instead of a town more suited to his rank, not quickly finding out how many of Rivers' men were in the area and, at least roughly, where they were. All that would be required would be to ask the innkeeper of wherever he and Buckingham were staying. With the result that Rivers' plan to ambush Richard and Buckingham in the morning is foiled because, rather than setting off down what is now the A 508, Richard and Buckingham, likely accompanied by their entire escorts, went directly to wherever Rivers was in Northampton on the morning of 30 April and arrested him. With noone to tell them what to do, Rivers' men did nothing. Thus allowing Richard to arrest Scales and Vaughan as well and then proceed to assume the escort of his nephew. I think this all holds together... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-25 10:22:38

Hilary Jones

Doug, this is how I see it too.
Having really looked at the geography from Northampton to Stony Stratford it is an area ripe for an ambush - from those side roads that you pointed out. I think Richard was telling the truth (didn't he always anyway).
The 2,000 retinue is a red herring and I think even Ross had second thoughts when he put the 250 ducal escort footnote. We know that EW wanted AW to come with a large army but Hastings and others dissuaded her. Another thought; if Rivers was coming direct from Ludlow why didn't he divert slightly through Coventry? You'd get by far the biggest army from there - they sent 500 to the Scottish wars. And the young King was its overlord with a special relationship with it. Odd, don't you think, seeing as they appeared to be in no hurry There is no record in the Coventry Leet of Rivers or the King passing through Coventry on that occasion. Like you, I think AW thought Northants 'safer territory' to recruit, with less spies perhaps? H
On Saturday, 24 February 2018, 19:46:40 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Nico wrote: AW's Norfolk trip makes me wonder if he ever returned to Ludlow at all. He would have been at Walsingham for the Pilgrimage. March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation, was the beginning of the calendar year in the 15th century. I don't know whether there were New Year celebrations as such, but it sounds like a festive time when people might not rush back to work. Both Walsingham and Middleton are in North Norfolk, not far from King's Lynn. AW may have planned a few days to sort things out in Middleton, then move on to Grafton Regis and the Midlands, then onto Ludlow, if a trip to Ludlow was actually planned. I had always thought AW was based there, but it seems his visits were more sporadic. He could also have gone to London, and been there when E4 died, and then moved on to Northampton, and designated that as a place for everyone to meet, including men from his Norfolk estates to make up the unusually large number of troops, while Vaughan escorted E5 from Ludlow meeting AW at Northampton, then moved onto Stony Stratford. Doug here: Well, we know it took Edward V's party four days to get to the Northampton area and, unless he was moving much faster, the same likely would apply the other way around. Then add, say, another two days travel from wherever Rivers was in Norfolk to Northampton and he could have arrived in Ludlow about a week after hearing of Edward IV's death. If we allow a minimum of two days for him to receive that news, then the earliest Rivers could have been in Ludlow would have been 17/18 April. Which would have given him a week to arrange things before starting out on the trip back to London. However, everyone concerned, Richard as well as Edward's party, seems to have stayed in place between hearing of Edward IV's death and St. George's Day. Would preparations for requiem masses, and the celebration of them, have taken that much time? I know of nothing that would have prevented preparations for the journey to London being made simultaneously with any requiem mass/es being arranged and celebrated. Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip? FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
Nico concluded: I think AW would have definitely have preferred to avoid a meeting with Richard. He probably wanted to get all his tronotops together, meet with allies then move onto London to sort out the coronation, ensuring that he never lost custody of E5. I would assume that Richard would have assumed custody of E5 immediately as he was Royalty and Protector, and it would be natural to assume that a meeting between the too would be arranged as soon as possible. It must have looked strange for Richard to find AW taking care of business in Northampton surrounded by an excess of troops, with E5 and Vaughan in Stony Stratford. Since Richard was coming from York, AW could have assumed that he would stop in Northampton and that he might have to see him, but he would need to ensure that E5 was not around. These things alone look suspicious, but Richard and Buckingham may also have noticed something evasive about AW's manner when they met him. Doug here: Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered. Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting. We know Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, but we don't know where all those men were stationed, do we? We also know there have been rumor for centuries about a planned ambush and we also know Richard justified his actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford to the Council by stating there had been a plan to capture/kill him and Buckingham. How long would it take for Rivers to arrange for everyone, including Richard, to meet together at Northampton and then proceed together to London? Would those days when nobody seemed to be doing anything be enough? There'd certainly be time enough to alert Dorset of his plans, wouldn't there? So, while Edward in Wales and Richard in York are making preparations for requiem masses and their respective trips to Northampton to meet Rivers, and neither planning on departing until 26 April; Rivers is at Northampton gathering together men from his properties in the Midlands and Norfolk. Richard arrives in Northampton on 29 April only to discover that Edward isn't there, but instead is at Stony Stratford, over ten miles away.. So the first question forms in Richard's mind: Why isn't Edward at Northampton? Not because the king should be where Richard could meet him, but because wasn't that where they all, including Edward, supposed to meet? Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford? Nor would it be expected that Richard and Buckingham be accompanied by their escorts. They would be calling on the king and would, of course, be accompanied by some men from their escorts, but not likely all of them. We have Edward at Stony Stratford with an unknown number of men, but possibly only those who'd made the entire journey with him from Wales. We have Richard and Buckingham in Northampton with their respective escorts, number together around no more than 500 men. This part is conjectural, but I think Rivers was also in Northampton and likely not accompanied by those 2,000 men. Why? Because of the ease with which Richard arrested him. There's no mention of any fighting; not even of Rivers putting up any resistance at all. With 2,000 within call? I've read many descriptions of Rivers, both laudatory and not, and cowardly wasn't among the adjectives. Which is why I conclude those 2,000 men weren't anywhere where they could help Rivers. Now this is also conjecture, but if there was anything close to 2,000 men in the vicinity of Northampton, the people of that town would know it. Especially if men had been trickling in over the previous week to ten days. They'd also likely know where those men were. And I can't see Richard, his suspicions aroused by Edward being at some small village instead of a town more suited to his rank, not quickly finding out how many of Rivers' men were in the area and, at least roughly, where they were.. All that would be required would be to ask the innkeeper of wherever he and Buckingham were staying. With the result that Rivers' plan to ambush Richard and Buckingham in the morning is foiled because, rather than setting off down what is now the A 508, Richard and Buckingham, likely accompanied by their entire escorts, went directly to wherever Rivers was in Northampton on the morning of 30 April and arrested him. With noone to tell them what to do, Rivers' men did nothing. Thus allowing Richard to arrest Scales and Vaughan as well and then proceed to assume the escort of his nephew. I think this all holds together... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-25 12:19:31

ricard1an

In the Bulletin article it gives a map showing how easy it would have been for Rivers to ambush Richard and how close it was to Grafton Regis If you go on to the R3 Society site and look at the articles in the Bulletin put in Stony Stratford, it comes up.
Mary.

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

2018-02-25 17:17:12

Durose David

Doug, Nico and Hilary,
There is an additional piece of the jigsaw puzzle to be taken into account when considering the movements of people and accommodation, which may touch on Hilary's interest in the wool trade.
If I have followed it correctly, the BHOL for Northampton says that an annual fair was held in spring. St George's fair appears to have been held over 8 days beginning on 23rd.
The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online

I am not sure how such fairs would be conducted, but it would certainly have made the town busy. It may also have affected the roads to and from town, with traders bringing and taking goods.
It is certainly a factor that needs to be considered. It may already have been included in the article mentioned by Mary.
Kind regardsDavid

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:46, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []<> wrote:

Nico wrote: AW's Norfolk trip makes me wonder if he ever returned to Ludlow at all. He would have been at Walsingham for the Pilgrimage. March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation, was the beginning of the calendar year in the 15th century. I don't know whether there were New Year celebrations as such, but it sounds like a festive time when people might not rush back to work. Both Walsingham and Middleton are in North Norfolk, not far from King's Lynn. AW may have planned a few days to sort things out in Middleton, then move on to Grafton Regis and the Midlands, then onto Ludlow, if a trip to Ludlow was actually planned. I had always thought AW was based there, but it seems his visits were more sporadic. He could also have gone to London, and been there when E4 died, and then moved on to Northampton, and designated that as a place for everyone to meet, including men from his Norfolk estates to make up the unusually large number of troops, while Vaughan escorted E5 from Ludlow meeting AW at Northampton, then moved onto Stony Stratford. Doug here: Well, we know it took Edward V's party four days to get to the Northampton area and, unless he was moving much faster, the same likely would apply the other way around. Then add, say, another two days travel from wherever Rivers was in Norfolk to Northampton and he could have arrived in Ludlow about a week after hearing of Edward IV's death. If we allow a minimum of two days for him to receive that news, then the earliest Rivers could have been in Ludlow would have been 17/18 April. Which would have given him a week to arrange things before starting out on the trip back to London. However, everyone concerned, Richard as well as Edward's party, seems to have stayed in place between hearing of Edward IV's death and St. George's Day. Would preparations for requiem masses, and the celebration of them, have taken that much time? I know of nothing that would have prevented preparations for the journey to London being made simultaneously with any requiem mass/es being arranged and celebrated. Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip? FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
Nico concluded: I think AW would have definitely have preferred to avoid a meeting with Richard. He probably wanted to get all his tronotops together, meet with allies then move onto London to sort out the coronation, ensuring that he never lost custody of E5. I would assume that Richard would have assumed custody of E5 immediately as he was Royalty and Protector, and it would be natural to assume that a meeting between the too would be arranged as soon as possible. It must have looked strange for Richard to find AW taking care of business in Northampton surrounded by an excess of troops, with E5 and Vaughan in Stony Stratford. Since Richard was coming from York, AW could have assumed that he would stop in Northampton and that he might have to see him, but he would need to ensure that E5 was not around. These things alone look suspicious, but Richard and Buckingham may also have noticed something evasive about AW's manner when they met him. Doug here: Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered. Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting. We know Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, but we don't know where all those men were stationed, do we? We also know there have been rumor for centuries about a planned ambush and we also know Richard justified his actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford to the Council by stating there had been a plan to capture/kill him and Buckingham. How long would it take for Rivers to arrange for everyone, including Richard, to meet together at Northampton and then proceed together to London? Would those days when nobody seemed to be doing anything be enough? There'd certainly be time enough to alert Dorset of his plans, wouldn't there? So, while Edward in Wales and Richard in York are making preparations for requiem masses and their respective trips to Northampton to meet Rivers, and neither planning on departing until 26 April; Rivers is at Northampton gathering together men from his properties in the Midlands and Norfolk. Richard arrives in Northampton on 29 April only to discover that Edward isn't there, but instead is at Stony Stratford, over ten miles away.. So the first question forms in Richard's mind: Why isn't Edward at Northampton? Not because the king should be where Richard could meet him, but because wasn't that where they all, including Edward, supposed to meet? Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford? Nor would it be expected that Richard and Buckingham be accompanied by their escorts. They would be calling on the king and would, of course, be accompanied by some men from their escorts, but not likely all of them. We have Edward at Stony Stratford with an unknown number of men, but possibly only those who'd made the entire journey with him from Wales. We have Richard and Buckingham in Northampton with their respective escorts, number together around no more than 500 men. This part is conjectural, but I think Rivers was also in Northampton and likely not accompanied by those 2,000 men. Why? Because of the ease with which Richard arrested him. There's no mention of any fighting; not even of Rivers putting up any resistance at all. With 2,000 within call? I've read many descriptions of Rivers, both laudatory and not, and cowardly wasn't among the adjectives. Which is why I conclude those 2,000 men weren't anywhere where they could help Rivers. Now this is also conjecture, but if there was anything close to 2,000 men in the vicinity of Northampton, the people of that town would know it. Especially if men had been trickling in over the previous week to ten days. They'd also likely know where those men were. And I can't see Richard, his suspicions aroused by Edward being at some small village instead of a town more suited to his rank, not quickly finding out how many of Rivers' men were in the area and, at least roughly, where they were.. All that would be required would be to ask the innkeeper of wherever he and Buckingham were staying. With the result that Rivers' plan to ambush Richard and Buckingham in the morning is foiled because, rather than setting off down what is now the A 508, Richard and Buckingham, likely accompanied by their entire escorts, went directly to wherever Rivers was in Northampton on the morning of 30 April and arrested him. With noone to tell them what to do, Rivers' men did nothing. Thus allowing Richard to arrest Scales and Vaughan as well and then proceed to assume the escort of his nephew. I think this all holds together... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-25 17:20:55

Doug Stamate

Hilary, I admit to wishing a tape reorder had been available for that meeting between Richard and Rivers! Instead, all we have are the almost certainly made-up speeches from Mancini, darn it! Before attaching myself too tightly to my new idea of Rivers waiting at Northampton, I did a quick check to see what Williamson wrote about the journey from Ludlow to Northampton and discovered that she based herself on Halsted's Richard III, giving a reference of ii,16. Does Halsted, who I understand to have been quite thorough, provide any information as to exactly where Rivers was? I did find these two interesting links, but a quick read-through didn't provide any help: http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2005_vol15_pidgeon_wydeville_1.pdf and http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2006_vol16_pidgeon_antony_wydevile_2.pdf That part about the Stonors does sound as if Elizabeth was trying to increase Woodville influence/affinity, if only because (if I understand it correctly) they had so little. Almost all the influence the Woodvilles had was based on their marriages, beginning with Jacquetta of Luxemburg and continuing to Edward IV. That Coventry bit might have been mostly EW simply doing what she imagined a Queen should do. That it subtly emphasized to the people of Coventry that there was someone more powerful that Clarence may have just been a bennie. And, if what I noticed in those links is true, there was quite the competition in building up affinities in the Midlands; Hastings, even the Stanleys, all seemed to want to expand into that area. Doug Hilary wrote: I do so agree with all this Nico (Doug). Annette, if I've interpreted it correctly, says that Rivers had been given responsibility for the prince's 'tutela', which also involved being responsible for his person. I would have thought that it was really not a good time to be away from him. In fact it must have been something very pressing which made Rivers linger from going straight to the new king. And Richard must have thought that too! FWIW whilst chasing distances and Gyles Wellesbourne from original sources I've twice come across EW dispensing largesse on her own. Once is to Stonor (who was then a 'friend') but the other was to the City of Coventry in 1474 when she clearly wrote to them before her husband knew, thanked them profusely for supporting Prince Edward and her other children and authorised the City Council to help itself to venison. This, of course, was at the time when the City 'reported into' Clarence. I do wonder how many other people and cities had been wooed in this way? We only know about it because these records have survived. Had the Woodvilles covertly been building up support for some time, particularly amongst those disaffected from York but hoping the Queen would be on their side?
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-25 17:45:50

Doug Stamate

Hilary wrote: I think your point about the Constable job says it all, because in having Edward potentially make the decision to have an interim Constable shows once again how precedent can be disregarded at whim! Perhaps Rivers junior knew he was supposed to reject it? Or was just too lazy? Doug here: If what I've most recently read about Rivers is correct, he seemed much more a person who was good a providing a show when it came to positions of responsibility, but not known for following through and actually doing the job. Perhaps Edward recognized that and encouraged Woodville to turn down his pending appointment as Constable? OTOH, Rivers later showed an ability in administering his properties, or in hiring good administrators, and that may have been why he was placed in over-all charge of Prince Edward's household. Hilary concluded: What the tone of the Coventry correspondence shows very clearly is who is boss. Edward doesn't even want the two ringleaders imprisoned at Ludlow (which Rivers had done) but sent to him to be dealt with more strongly. Given that this is 1481 it shows a King on the top of his game, not someone given over to laziness. Of the letters written to Coventry by three kings, Edward, Richard and HT, Richard's is by far the most cordial; though still firm. It shows a king more in tune with the Council and people, honed no doubt from many years looking after York. Doug here: Well, if we look at this from Edward's viewpoint, I think it makes much more sense. If we view Edward's feelings and resultant actions as being not unlike those of Charles II. Charles was determined to not go on his travels again; IOW, exile. Edward knew Clarence, regardless of whatever other qualities he had, always placed his wishes and wants above everyone else's including the King. Did Edward really want to risk building up Antony Woodville's power base? Because until the Prince of Wales came of age, that's what Rivers' actions would amount to. FWIW, I tend to think Edward IV would have made an excellent constitutional monarch, someone on the order of, say, Edward VII? However, Edward IV, in order to satisfy his more earthly wishes, also had to manage the kingdom and, or so I believe, he was continually in search of capable, loyal adminstrators. He found one in Richard, didn't in Clarence and wasn't about to risk another Clarence developing. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-25 17:51:26

Doug Stamate

Stephen wrote:
"It wasn't an ideal time but Carson has shown that Anthony disclaimed the
title of Constable between 12 August and 31 October 1469.
Whether this was his decision or Edward's, we don't know yet."

Doug here:
FWIW, the more I learn about Rivers, the more I'm inclined to believe
Rivers' decision wasn't his alone. Although we have no definite proof, I
tend towards the view of Edward offering Rivers the position, while
simultaneously "encouraging" him to turn it down.
Doug

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

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

2018-02-25 18:27:07

ricard1an

I don't remember it being mentioned. I have tried to find it again but it doesn't seem to be available on the Society page, however if you google Ricardian Bulletin it brings up all the Bulletins that are on line unfortunately I can't remember which year it was so short of going through them all I can't find it. Maybe someone with better computer skills might be able to find it.
Mary

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

2018-02-25 18:45:00

Stephen

It was Edward, in the 1467 document, that had remaindered the title to Anthony on his father's death. Could the king have changed his mind so quickly?

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 25 February 2018 17:51
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Stephen wrote:
"It wasn't an ideal time but Carson has shown that Anthony disclaimed the
title of Constable between 12 August and 31 October 1469.
Whether this was his decision or Edward's, we don't know yet."

Doug here:
FWIW, the more I learn about Rivers, the more I'm inclined to believe
Rivers' decision wasn't his alone. Although we have no definite proof, I
tend towards the view of Edward offering Rivers the position, while
simultaneously "encouraging" him to turn it down.
Doug

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

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

2018-02-25 18:50:15

ricard1an

I have just found it. It was the Spring Bulletin 2004 on page 27 Stony Stratford: The Case for the Prosecution by Gordon Smith. I have now made a note of it.
Mary

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

2018-02-26 09:38:08

Hilary Jones

That's very interesting. Thanks David H
On Sunday, 25 February 2018, 17:17:24 GMT, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Nico and Hilary,

There is an additional piece of the jigsaw puzzle to be taken into account when considering the movements of people and accommodation, which may touch on Hilary's interest in the wool trade.
If I have followed it correctly, the BHOL for Northampton says that an annual fair was held in spring. St George's fair appears to have been held over 8 days beginning on 23rd.
The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online

Nico wrote: AW's Norfolk trip makes me wonder if he ever returned to Ludlow at all. He would have been at Walsingham for the Pilgrimage. March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation, was the beginning of the calendar year in the 15th century. I don't know whether there were New Year celebrations as such, but it sounds like a festive time when people might not rush back to work. Both Walsingham and Middleton are in North Norfolk, not far from King's Lynn. AW may have planned a few days to sort things out in Middleton, then move on to Grafton Regis and the Midlands, then onto Ludlow, if a trip to Ludlow was actually planned. I had always thought AW was based there, but it seems his visits were more sporadic. He could also have gone to London, and been there when E4 died, and then moved on to Northampton, and designated that as a place for everyone to meet, including men from his Norfolk estates to make up the unusually large number of troops, while Vaughan escorted E5 from Ludlow meeting AW at Northampton, then moved onto Stony Stratford. Doug here: Well, we know it took Edward V's party four days to get to the Northampton area and, unless he was moving much faster, the same likely would apply the other way around. Then add, say, another two days travel from wherever Rivers was in Norfolk to Northampton and he could have arrived in Ludlow about a week after hearing of Edward IV's death. If we allow a minimum of two days for him to receive that news, then the earliest Rivers could have been in Ludlow would have been 17/18 April. Which would have given him a week to arrange things before starting out on the trip back to London. However, everyone concerned, Richard as well as Edward's party, seems to have stayed in place between hearing of Edward IV's death and St. George's Day. Would preparations for requiem masses, and the celebration of them, have taken that much time? I know of nothing that would have prevented preparations for the journey to London being made simultaneously with any requiem mass/es being arranged and celebrated. Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip? FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
Nico concluded: I think AW would have definitely have preferred to avoid a meeting with Richard. He probably wanted to get all his tronotops together, meet with allies then move onto London to sort out the coronation, ensuring that he never lost custody of E5. I would assume that Richard would have assumed custody of E5 immediately as he was Royalty and Protector, and it would be natural to assume that a meeting between the too would be arranged as soon as possible. It must have looked strange for Richard to find AW taking care of business in Northampton surrounded by an excess of troops, with E5 and Vaughan in Stony Stratford. Since Richard was coming from York, AW could have assumed that he would stop in Northampton and that he might have to see him, but he would need to ensure that E5 was not around. These things alone look suspicious, but Richard and Buckingham may also have noticed something evasive about AW's manner when they met him. Doug here: Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered. Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting. We know Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, but we don't know where all those men were stationed, do we? We also know there have been rumor for centuries about a planned ambush and we also know Richard justified his actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford to the Council by stating there had been a plan to capture/kill him and Buckingham. How long would it take for Rivers to arrange for everyone, including Richard, to meet together at Northampton and then proceed together to London? Would those days when nobody seemed to be doing anything be enough? There'd certainly be time enough to alert Dorset of his plans, wouldn't there? So, while Edward in Wales and Richard in York are making preparations for requiem masses and their respective trips to Northampton to meet Rivers, and neither planning on departing until 26 April; Rivers is at Northampton gathering together men from his properties in the Midlands and Norfolk. Richard arrives in Northampton on 29 April only to discover that Edward isn't there, but instead is at Stony Stratford, over ten miles away... So the first question forms in Richard's mind: Why isn't Edward at Northampton? Not because the king should be where Richard could meet him, but because wasn't that where they all, including Edward, supposed to meet? Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford? Nor would it be expected that Richard and Buckingham be accompanied by their escorts. They would be calling on the king and would, of course, be accompanied by some men from their escorts, but not likely all of them. We have Edward at Stony Stratford with an unknown number of men, but possibly only those who'd made the entire journey with him from Wales. We have Richard and Buckingham in Northampton with their respective escorts, number together around no more than 500 men. This part is conjectural, but I think Rivers was also in Northampton and likely not accompanied by those 2,000 men. Why? Because of the ease with which Richard arrested him. There's no mention of any fighting; not even of Rivers putting up any resistance at all. With 2,000 within call? I've read many descriptions of Rivers, both laudatory and not, and cowardly wasn't among the adjectives. Which is why I conclude those 2,000 men weren't anywhere where they could help Rivers. Now this is also conjecture, but if there was anything close to 2,000 men in the vicinity of Northampton, the people of that town would know it. Especially if men had been trickling in over the previous week to ten days. They'd also likely know where those men were. And I can't see Richard, his suspicions aroused by Edward being at some small village instead of a town more suited to his rank, not quickly finding out how many of Rivers' men were in the area and, at least roughly, where they were... All that would be required would be to ask the innkeeper of wherever he and Buckingham were staying. With the result that Rivers' plan to ambush Richard and Buckingham in the morning is foiled because, rather than setting off down what is now the A 508, Richard and Buckingham, likely accompanied by their entire escorts, went directly to wherever Rivers was in Northampton on the morning of 30 April and arrested him. With noone to tell them what to do, Rivers' men did nothing. Thus allowing Richard to arrest Scales and Vaughan as well and then proceed to assume the escort of his nephew. I think this all holds together... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-26 12:26:06

Nicholas Brown

Doug: Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip?...
According to Wikipedia, although there is no source cited, the news that E4 had died reached E5 at Ludlow on April 14. That is probably estimated from the distance between London and Ludlow being 155 miles, rather than anything that is actually known. The problem with AW's position is that we don't know where he was when Edward died. If he was still in Norfolk, then he would have received the news there about the same time; in the Midlands, a day or two earlier, but if in London, more or less immediately. If AW was not in Ludlow at the time, then he would have to consider whether to go to Ludlow, or meet up with E5's party and everyone else in the central location of Northampton. If he had gone to Ludlow, that would have added days, especially if he delayed his departure. A properly arranged trip would have required organization, but I don't know how much. It can't have been the first time E5 had travelled outside of Ludlow, so it can't have required that much more planning. However, if you are combining the trip with plans for an ambush that might take some extra time. AW and anyone else involved such as Richard Grey would have had to meet to plan the strategy, then arrange for the excess of troops, although it is possible that Vaughan was not in on the plot. Some would have been from Ludlow, but if others were coming from the Midlands, he would have to arrange that too. If AW returned to Ludlow late, it may have been because he was co-ordinating troops from his other properties
FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
While there may have been real concerns about E4's health, anyone around him would have to be careful about how the approached it. AW's letter earlier in 1483 regarding young E5's guardianship that Collins mentioned does indicate that there was some cause for concern. However, E4 may have been an optimist about his health and unwilling to discuss the possibility of him dying before E5 came of age. The problem with pushing the subject was the it could have led to accusations of imagining the King's death, so AW had to be extremely careful.
Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered...Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting...Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford?

The more I think about it, I think that the ambush would have been planned from the outset, possibly with private discussions what to do between AW and Richard Grey even before E4 died. I can't see any reason for so many troops, especially in peacetime, and AW probably felt very confident of success if Richard were outnumbered by 8-1. Some troops may have been in Northampton, and some with E5 in Stony Stratford, but I suspect the majority were stationed deep in Woodville territory around Grafton Regis, the most likely location for the ambush. You are right to point out that if so many were in Northampton, arresting AW would have been more difficult, especially if the men had been recruited from his estates. Also, Northampton would have been overwhelmed by the numbers in a way that would have attracted some contemporary comment. AW would have anticipated meeting with Richard regarding E5, so he needed to get his charge out of the way to stop Richard taking control as guardian. To find E5 in Stony Stratford, Richard and Buckingham would most likely take the direct route through Grafton Regis, and if the troops were concentrated around there, they would have very little chance against them.
For me, this incident highlights so much about AW's personality - arrogant and ambitious to the point of clumsiness. What he missed out was realizing that even the best planned ambush requires that the person you intend to ambush reaches the desired place. He completely underestimated the fact that placing E5 in such a strange location, and already making plans for an early coronation would raise a red flag. You wouldn't even need to be a distinguished military leader like Richard to see something wasn't right. At best, it was a breach of protocol and downright rude, but AW wasn't counting on ever having to justify his bad manners.
Nico

On Monday, 26 February 2018, 09:38:13 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That's very interesting. Thanks David H
On Sunday, 25 February 2018, 17:17:24 GMT, Durose David daviddurose2000@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, Nico and Hilary,

Nico wrote: AW's Norfolk trip makes me wonder if he ever returned to Ludlow at all. He would have been at Walsingham for the Pilgrimage. March 25, The Feast of the Annunciation, was the beginning of the calendar year in the 15th century. I don't know whether there were New Year celebrations as such, but it sounds like a festive time when people might not rush back to work. Both Walsingham and Middleton are in North Norfolk, not far from King's Lynn. AW may have planned a few days to sort things out in Middleton, then move on to Grafton Regis and the Midlands, then onto Ludlow, if a trip to Ludlow was actually planned. I had always thought AW was based there, but it seems his visits were more sporadic. He could also have gone to London, and been there when E4 died, and then moved on to Northampton, and designated that as a place for everyone to meet, including men from his Norfolk estates to make up the unusually large number of troops, while Vaughan escorted E5 from Ludlow meeting AW at Northampton, then moved onto Stony Stratford. Doug here: Well, we know it took Edward V's party four days to get to the Northampton area and, unless he was moving much faster, the same likely would apply the other way around. Then add, say, another two days travel from wherever Rivers was in Norfolk to Northampton and he could have arrived in Ludlow about a week after hearing of Edward IV's death. If we allow a minimum of two days for him to receive that news, then the earliest Rivers could have been in Ludlow would have been 17/18 April. Which would have given him a week to arrange things before starting out on the trip back to London. However, everyone concerned, Richard as well as Edward's party, seems to have stayed in place between hearing of Edward IV's death and St. George's Day. Would preparations for requiem masses, and the celebration of them, have taken that much time? I know of nothing that would have prevented preparations for the journey to London being made simultaneously with any requiem mass/es being arranged and celebrated. Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip? FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
Nico concluded: I think AW would have definitely have preferred to avoid a meeting with Richard. He probably wanted to get all his tronotops together, meet with allies then move onto London to sort out the coronation, ensuring that he never lost custody of E5. I would assume that Richard would have assumed custody of E5 immediately as he was Royalty and Protector, and it would be natural to assume that a meeting between the too would be arranged as soon as possible. It must have looked strange for Richard to find AW taking care of business in Northampton surrounded by an excess of troops, with E5 and Vaughan in Stony Stratford. Since Richard was coming from York, AW could have assumed that he would stop in Northampton and that he might have to see him, but he would need to ensure that E5 was not around. These things alone look suspicious, but Richard and Buckingham may also have noticed something evasive about AW's manner when they met him. Doug here: Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered. Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting. We know Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, but we don't know where all those men were stationed, do we? We also know there have been rumor for centuries about a planned ambush and we also know Richard justified his actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford to the Council by stating there had been a plan to capture/kill him and Buckingham. How long would it take for Rivers to arrange for everyone, including Richard, to meet together at Northampton and then proceed together to London? Would those days when nobody seemed to be doing anything be enough? There'd certainly be time enough to alert Dorset of his plans, wouldn't there? So, while Edward in Wales and Richard in York are making preparations for requiem masses and their respective trips to Northampton to meet Rivers, and neither planning on departing until 26 April; Rivers is at Northampton gathering together men from his properties in the Midlands and Norfolk. Richard arrives in Northampton on 29 April only to discover that Edward isn't there, but instead is at Stony Stratford, over ten miles away.... So the first question forms in Richard's mind: Why isn't Edward at Northampton? Not because the king should be where Richard could meet him, but because wasn't that where they all, including Edward, supposed to meet? Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford? Nor would it be expected that Richard and Buckingham be accompanied by their escorts. They would be calling on the king and would, of course, be accompanied by some men from their escorts, but not likely all of them. We have Edward at Stony Stratford with an unknown number of men, but possibly only those who'd made the entire journey with him from Wales. We have Richard and Buckingham in Northampton with their respective escorts, number together around no more than 500 men. This part is conjectural, but I think Rivers was also in Northampton and likely not accompanied by those 2,000 men. Why? Because of the ease with which Richard arrested him. There's no mention of any fighting; not even of Rivers putting up any resistance at all. With 2,000 within call? I've read many descriptions of Rivers, both laudatory and not, and cowardly wasn't among the adjectives. Which is why I conclude those 2,000 men weren't anywhere where they could help Rivers. Now this is also conjecture, but if there was anything close to 2,000 men in the vicinity of Northampton, the people of that town would know it. Especially if men had been trickling in over the previous week to ten days. They'd also likely know where those men were. And I can't see Richard, his suspicions aroused by Edward being at some small village instead of a town more suited to his rank, not quickly finding out how many of Rivers' men were in the area and, at least roughly, where they were.... All that would be required would be to ask the innkeeper of wherever he and Buckingham were staying. With the result that Rivers' plan to ambush Richard and Buckingham in the morning is foiled because, rather than setting off down what is now the A 508, Richard and Buckingham, likely accompanied by their entire escorts, went directly to wherever Rivers was in Northampton on the morning of 30 April and arrested him. With noone to tell them what to do, Rivers' men did nothing. Thus allowing Richard to arrest Scales and Vaughan as well and then proceed to assume the escort of his nephew. I think this all holds together... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

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

2018-02-26 15:00:00

mariewalsh2003

Think last message lost.
We know EV got the news of his father's death in 14th because he wrote to kings Lynn to tell them.

You should be able to find that info plus my calculations re the messenger's travel speeds in a much earlier post of mine.

Whilst it's true that the woodvilles wanted a very early coronation, It would still take time to organise and probably couldn't have been scheduled for any earlier than 4 May. I think they would have avoided having EV arrive in London before the start of the coronation proceedings since until he was crowned Woodville ascendancy would be at risk. Hence, I believe, delaying the journey so as to arrive in London 2 May, the day before the royal procession from the Tower to Westminster.

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

2018-02-26 15:21:03

Doug Stamate

Stephen wrote:
"It was Edward, in the 1467 document, that had remaindered the title to
Anthony on his father's death. Could the king have changed his mind so
quickly?"

Doug here:
But the political situation changed drastically between 1567 and late
summer/early autumn 1469. If I understand it correctly, one of the reasons
for the rebellion against Edward in the late summer of 1469 was the rapid
rise of his Woodville relations. Could it be that Edward realized that and,
once he regained his freedom, decided it would be better for the Constable
to be someone other than Anthony Woodville, if only as a matter of "public
relations"? Obviously neither Warwick nor Edward's brother George would do.
Richard, OTOH, was of royal blood, trustworthy and, most importantly, NOT a
Woodville.
Anyway, 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: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III Society Forum] Re

2018-02-26 16:30:08

Nicholas Brown

Thanks Marie, That is true, the Woodvilles could easily have lost their ascendancy over E5 if the had arrived in London too early. Nico

On Monday, 26 February 2018, 15:00:10 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-26 16:30:14

Doug Stamate

Hilary, I agree with you to the extent that whether Rivers actually had 2,000 men isn't, I think, the question and it's what he intended to do with the men he did have. I do think he had an unusually large number for the circumstances, however; perhaps twice as much as Richard's and Buckingham's combined escorts. And we don't know exactly how many men they had, either. They may, or may not, each have had the 250 men constituting the usual escort. FWIW, I think the Woodvilles' original plan was to assemble a large army to both escort Edward to London and over-awe any opposition. We have Dorset claiming the Woodvilles are in the driver's seat, even though from its' actions it's obvious they don't control the Council. Why would Dorset say what he's alleged to have said unless he believed he and his Woodville relations had the means to negate the wishes of the current Council? And the most obvious means would be a large body of armed men accompanying a king who would be willing to carry out their wishes. However, the Council stuck its' collective nose in and forced a reduction in men to that 2,000. Which means Rivers may not be in a position to over-come opposition in London by force should it develop. Most importantly, in order to retain their places at the top of the political pyramid, Rivers has to retain custody of Edward until after the coronation and the reshaping of the Council. Of course, if Rivers had had any sense, he'd have had all his men with him in Northampton and arrested Richard and Buckingham at that meeting. Personally, I think he didn't because he wanted some form of plausible denial. If Richard, and Buckingham, go trotting off down the medieval A 508 to meet the king, they wouldn't be going with their entire escorts. Because, and this is the most important part, once Richard and Buckingham are dead, any story that gets out will be Rivers' version with no one to say otherwise. Robbery? Mistaken identity? Richard planned to kill Edward? It wouldn't matter. What would matter was that the two men who could serve as centers of opposition to the Woodvilles would be dead. As for not availing himself of any aid from Coventry, perhaps that was due to Rivers simply not wanting to involve Edward? Other than as bait, that is. Doug Hilary wrote: Doug, this is how I see it too. Having really looked at the geography from Northampton to Stony Stratford it is an area ripe for an ambush - from those side roads that you pointed out.. I think Richard was telling the truth (didn't he always anyway). The 2,000 retinue is a red herring and I think even Ross had second thoughts when he put the 250 ducal escort footnote. We know that EW wanted AW to come with a large army but Hastings and others dissuaded her. Another thought; if Rivers was coming direct from Ludlow why didn't he divert slightly through Coventry? You'd get by far the biggest army from there - they sent 500 to the Scottish wars. And the young King was its overlord with a special relationship with it. Odd, don't you think, seeing as they appeared to be in no hurry There is no record in the Coventry Leet of Rivers or the King passing through Coventry on that occasion. Like you, I think AW thought Northants 'safer territory' to recruit, with less spies perhaps?
--
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: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 10:15:12

Hilary Jones

You know the one thing that doesn't fit with all this is that we know that Rivers was, shall we say, risk averse. He'd usually got a pilgrimage up his sleeve when asked to do anything where he might possibly come to harm. Personally I think this smacks of Lady Macbeth (otherwise known as EW) and he had to do it because she'd got no-one else. And she was Queen. So she'd probably promised him those extra troops (which is why he didn't stop off at Coventry) and then, due to Hastings, it all fell through. Gives a real motive to get rid of Hastings doesn't it?
So imagine Rivers knowing he's still got to go ahead with this, but without the support he was expecting. He must have been incredibly jittery. In fact could that be why he put Edward elsewhere? And if he was jittery, then even more reason for Richard to smell a rat.
What about Buckingham in all this? Do you reckon he was 'doing a Stanley'? Had he heard on the Woodville grapevine that something like this might happen so made sure he was where the action was to step in and lend support to the winning side? I still can't think of any other real reason for his being there. H
On Monday, 26 February 2018, 16:34:54 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 11:08:05

ricard1an

That thought about Hasting having to be got rid of has occurred to me. We know from Annette's book that things were not good between the Woodvilles and Hastings even before Edward's death and then he tries to pre-empt their plot to get Edward V to London and have him crowned as soon as possible. Possibly they thought that they could kill two birds with one stone, persuade Hastings to kill Richard and then execute Hastings for having killed the Protector and Lord Constable.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 12:35:55

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Mary & All

I'm sorry I missed the beginning of this discussion. Are you referring to Annette Carson's book on Richard as Constable and Lord High Protector, rather than The Maligned King. I have the latter (of course), not the former, but I see it is available for only $5.10 for kindle in Canada a bargain, I am sure!

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 7:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 12:48:17

Hilary Jones

That's a good point Mary. Some fabrication via Dorset/Jane Shore? H
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 11:08:12 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 13:49:30

ricard1an

No Johane, Maligned King. Annette says that Hastings and the Woodvilles weren't exactly on the best of terms before Edward died.
Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISoc

2018-02-27 13:51:23

Stephen

Yes, we are.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 27 February 2018 12:36
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISociety Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hi, Mary & All

I'm sorry I missed the beginning of this discussion. Are you referring to Annette Carson's book on Richard as Constable and Lord High Protector, rather than The Maligned King. I have the latter (of course), not the former, but I see it is available for only $5.10 for kindle in Canada a bargain, I am sure!

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 7:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

That thought about Hasting having to be got rid of has occurred to me. We know from Annette's book that things were not good between the Woodvilles and Hastings even before Edward's death and then he tries to pre-empt their plot to get Edward V to London and have him crowned as soon as possible. Possibly they thought that they could kill two birds with one stone, persuade Hastings to kill Richard and then execute Hastings for having killed the Protector and Lord Constable.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISoc

2018-02-27 13:54:23

Johanne Tournier

Thanks, Stephen

It must be an interesting book. I know the discussion around it has been going on for quite a while. I kept reading things like in Carson's book (etc.) but never caught the title. But I figured it must be the newer book rather than her classic Maligned King. 😊

Thanks!

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISociety Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [RichardIIISoci

2018-02-27 13:58:22

Stephen

It certainly is and signed =

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 27 February 2018 13:54
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [RichardIIISociety Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Thanks, Stephen

It must be an interesting book. I know the discussion around it has been going on for quite a while. I kept reading things like in Carson's book (etc.) but never caught the title. But I figured it must be the newer book rather than her classic Maligned King. =

Thanks!

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISociety Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Yes, we are.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 27 February 2018 12:36
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard IIISociety Forum] Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Hi, Mary & All

I'm sorry I missed the beginning of this discussion. Are you referring to Annette Carson's book on Richard as Constable and Lord High Protector, rather than The Maligned King. I have the latter (of course), not the former, but I see it is available for only $5.10 for kindle in Canada a bargain, I am sure!

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 7:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

That thought about Hasting having to be got rid of has occurred to me. We know from Annette's book that things were not good between the Woodvilles and Hastings even before Edward's death and then he tries to pre-empt their plot to get Edward V to London and have him crowned as soon as possible. Possibly they thought that they could kill two birds with one stone, persuade Hastings to kill Richard and then execute Hastings for having killed the Protector and Lord Constable.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 14:09:22

Johanne Tournier

Hi, Mary

Well, judging from what you and Stephen have written perhaps it's both books?

I just ordered the Constableship one to be instantly delivered to my kindle, and I am looking forward to it. And I may review Maligned King, too, because it's been a while since I read that one.

Thanks muchly to both you and Stephen! 😊

Johanne

From: [mailto:]
Sent: February 27, 2018 9:49 AM
To:
Subject: RE: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

No Johane, Maligned King. Annette says that Hastings and the Woodvilles weren't exactly on the best of terms before Edward died.

Mary

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 14:40:18

Karen O

Maybe he put Edward elsewhere to avoid him.snitching him out. You wouldn't trust a thirteen year old,would you?
On Feb 27, 2018 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 15:52:42

Doug Stamate

David, Thank you for this. It still doesn't explain why Edward V was at Stony Stratford rather than Northampton. Even allowing for an increase in population for the fair, accommodations for the new king would be found more easily in Northampton (if only by turfing someone out of their accommodations). Such a fair might also serve in help covering the gathering together of those 2,000 men, as well. Doug David wrote: Doug, Nico and Hilary, There is an additional piece of the jigsaw puzzle to be taken into account when considering the movements of people and accommodation, which may touch on Hilary's interest in the wool trade. If I have followed it correctly, the BHOL for Northampton says that an annual fair was held in spring. St George's fair appears to have been held over 8 days beginning on 23rd. The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online The borough of Northampton: Introduction | British History Online

I am not sure how such fairs would be conducted, but it would certainly have made the town busy. It may also have affected the roads to and from town, with traders bringing and taking goods. It is certainly a factor that needs to be considered. It may already have been included in the article mentioned by Mary.
--
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: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 16:40:41

Doug Stamate

Nico, I've numbered my replies to match (I hope!) your paragraphs. Hope it helps! 1) Of course I don't have any definite proof, but currently I'm more and more inclined to think Rivers never went further west than Northampton. It would be the perfect place to meet up with Edward's party coming from Ludlow and would also be an excellent rendezvous for his men, whether they numbered 10,000 or that 2,000. Rivers could have made all his arrangements from Northampton via messengers who wouldn't be operating under the same constraints as Garter knights (unless I've missed something). Any messengers to/from Ludlow could also serve as messengers to his Midland properties. 2) FWIW, I'm still of the opinion that, as far as anyone knew or imagined, Edward IV's health was good; if only because so much of what occurred after his death seems so spur-of-the-moment. In another post I had links to a two-part article in the Ricardian where Rivers' attempts, sometimes successful, to gain property belonging to other people was mentioned. Could his wanting to know the parameters, so to speak, of his authority as head of the Prince of Wale's household been related to his desire to increase his own properties using that position? 3) It's only my opinion, but I tend to think the original plan was to over-awe/control London with an immense number of men while Edward was being crowned. Once crowned, Edward could then, advised by his Woodville relatives of course, reshape the Council and call a Parliament and have it place its' stamp of approval on what had happened. After that, anyone opposing what had happened could face charges of treason. IOW, an entirely legal coup d'etat! So I tend to think the idea of an ambush came about because the Council had requested Rivers limit the number of men escorting Edward. Lacking an army to back up their plans, Rivers then decided to cut off the head/s of any potential opposition by capturing/killing Richard and Buckingham, using Edward as bait. David provided a link that shows there was a St. George's Day Fair in Northampton beginning on 23 April and lasting eight day; IOW, until 1 May. An excellent cover for men to be gathered together for less-than-honest purposes, I'd imagine. It would also lend credence to Edward being at Stony Stratford at least as long as one didn't think to compare the sizes of the two places. Northampton would be packed with Fair-goers, so there wouldn't be any room for the king there. Of course, the idea of some inn-keeper refusing to make room for the king because he'd already got someone in those rooms is ridiculous. Here in the U.S. for many years, some inns were best (only?) known because George Washington slept here; I seriously doubt the same wouldn't apply to medieval Northampton and Edward V! 4) The Woodvilles seemed to have displayed almost all of the bad traits associated with the nouveau riche, don't they? Doug Nico wrote: Doug: Even allowing a week for such celebrations, I'm missing 7-10 days that, in my opinion at least, should have seen Edward's party already in London. What do you think of the idea that, at least in regards to Rivers & Co., those missing days were spent in making arrangements as to where everyone would meet? Or, as Richard also didn't leave until after St. George's Day, perhaps I'm simply under-estimating the time it took to arrange a properly escorted trip?...
According to Wikipedia, although there is no source cited, the news that E4 had died reached E5 at Ludlow on April 14. That is probably estimated from the distance between London and Ludlow being 155 miles, rather than anything that is actually known. The problem with AW's position is that we don't know where he was when Edward died. If he was still in Norfolk, then he would have received the news there about the same time; in the Midlands, a day or two earlier, but if in London, more or less immediately. If AW was not in Ludlow at the time, then he would have to consider whether to go to Ludlow, or meet up with E5's party and everyone else in the central location of Northampton. If he had gone to Ludlow, that would have added days, especially if he delayed his departure. A properly arranged trip would have required organization, but I don't know how much. It can't have been the first time E5 had travelled outside of Ludlow, so it can't have required that much more planning. However, if you are combining the trip with plans for an ambush that might take some extra time. AW and anyone else involved such as Richard Grey would have had to meet to plan the strategy, then arrange for the excess of troops, although it is possible that Vaughan was not in on the plot. Some would have been from Ludlow, but if others were coming from the Midlands, he would have to arrange that too. If AW returned to Ludlow late, it may have been because he was co-ordinating troops from his other properties
FWIW, it's also those missing days that have led me to believe that the Woodvilles were caught as flat-footed by the death of Edward IV as was everyone else. Even allowing for incompetence on Rivers' part, if there were any hints Edward's over-all health wasn't good, why weren't plans in place to cover the possibility of Edward's death?
While there may have been real concerns about E4's health, anyone around him would have to be careful about how the approached it. AW's letter earlier in 1483 regarding young E5's guardianship that Collins mentioned does indicate that there was some cause for concern. However, E4 may have been an optimist about his health and unwilling to discuss the possibility of him dying before E5 came of age. The problem with pushing the subject was the it could have led to accusations of imagining the King's death, so AW had to be extremely careful.
Further thoughts on Rivers have led me to consider reversing my original idea that Rivers wouldn't have wanted to meet Richard prior to Edward V's arrival in London and his almost-immediate coronation. It's those 2,000 men Rivers had gathered...Could Rivers' plan from the beginning been to capture or kill Richard? After all, 2,000 is greater than 250 by a factor of eight, and even I would consider odds of 8-1 in my favor to likely be decisive if it came to any fighting...Which again brings up the question of those 2,000 men. Presuming they weren't in Northampton, if only because of the ease at which Richard arrested Rivers on 30 April, where were they? Could they have been strung out along the road Richard, and Buckingham, would be expected to take as they made their way to that meeting with Edward in Stony Stratford?

The more I think about it, I think that the ambush would have been planned from the outset, possibly with private discussions what to do between AW and Richard Grey even before E4 died.. I can't see any reason for so many troops, especially in peacetime, and AW probably felt very confident of success if Richard were outnumbered by 8-1. Some troops may have been in Northampton, and some with E5 in Stony Stratford, but I suspect the majority were stationed deep in Woodville territory around Grafton Regis, the most likely location for the ambush.. You are right to point out that if so many were in Northampton, arresting AW would have been more difficult, especially if the men had been recruited from his estates. Also, Northampton would have been overwhelmed by the numbers in a way that would have attracted some contemporary comment. AW would have anticipated meeting with Richard regarding E5, so he needed to get his charge out of the way to stop Richard taking control as guardian. To find E5 in Stony Stratford, Richard and Buckingham would most likely take the direct route through Grafton Regis, and if the troops were concentrated around there, they would have very little chance against them.
For me, this incident highlights so much about AW's personality - arrogant and ambitious to the point of clumsiness. What he missed out was realizing that even the best planned ambush requires that the person you intend to ambush reaches the desired place. He completely underestimated the fact that placing E5 in such a strange location, and already making plans for an early coronation would raise a red flag. You wouldn't even need to be a distinguished military leader like Richard to see something wasn't right. At best, it was a breach of protocol and downright rude, but AW wasn't counting on ever having to justify his bad manners.
--
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: RE: [Richard III So

2018-02-27 19:18:57

Hilary Jones

Hi Karen. Well if you look back at Edward III I certainly wouldn't. H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018, 2:40 pm, Karen O karenoder4@... [] <> wrote:

Maybe he put Edward elsewhere to avoid him.snitching him out. You wouldn't trust a thirteen year old,would you?
On Feb 27, 2018 5:15 AM, "Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []" <> wrote:

Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: RE:

2018-02-28 16:26:21

Doug Stamate

Hilary, The problem is that we don't know where Rivers actually was between 25 March and 29 April. He may have ridden to Ludlow, then again, he may not have. Currently, and quite tentatively I might add, I'm placing Rivers in the Northampton area, waiting for Edward's party, while simultaneously gathering together a fairly large number of men. I also lean towards the idea that the original plan was to gather a small army to escort Edward to London, said small army also being useful in over-aweing any possible opposition. I think it all leads back to the Council likely being divided into three groups; Woodville supporters, anti-Woodville members and the third group waiting to see just how the wind was going to blow. The limited actions taken by the Council, as well as the request to limit the size of Edward's escort shows that the Woodvilles couldn't count on the current composition of the Council. Those actions, especially the one about the size of Edward's escort, tells me that there was a majority of the Council unwilling to see the Woodvilles in complete charge and only lacked a leader. A leader such as, say, Richard. Rivers may very well have been jittery when he met Richard, if only because he hadn't got that small army and was forced to rely on a subterfuge to capture/kill Richard. FWIW, I do think that original plan had as one of its' main aims the capture/death of Richard. With a small army at his back, Rivers would have had no problems arresting Richard but, because of the Council's request, with the more limited numbers at his disposal, a direct confrontation wasn't as sure a thing. Thus the idea of an ambush. And, since wouldn't he be directly involved (in fighting, that it), that may have made it even more appealing to Rivers. What I think ruined Rivers' plan was his failure to realize that people talk. Apparently Rivers didn't have a large number of men with him in Northampton when he met with Richard. However, if Rivers had been gathering men together in the Northampton area since the St. George's Day Fair, they had to be somewhere, and who more likely to know that than the people living in the area? Rivers telling Richard that Edward isn't in Northampton, but rather is at Stony Stratford, would have been the first suspicious item. This is sheer speculation of course, but it wouldn't take many questions to discover that large numbers of men, unrelated to any festivities/fair, have been gathering to the south of the town. It would be, as it's said, common knowledge. Now, what would you do, if you were Richard, and you find out that not only was the King not in Northampton, a much more suitable site, but that the person with whom you've just made your arrangements to see the king, failed to mention that there's a very large body of his men between Northampton and Stony Stratford? Right along the route you're expected to take? It's looking more and more as if Northampton was a generally agreed-upon meeting site. Richard apparently intended to meet Edward's party there, as did Rivers. So, whether Buckingham accompanied Edward's party or whether he made arrangements with Richard to meet him at Northampton or whether he just showed up, wouldn't necessarily matter, would it? If, as I tend to believe, all of these plans were made on the spur of the moment in reaction to Edward IV's unexpected death, I don't know how involved Buckingham's wife would have been in any plans (presuming her to have been the conduit for information). Of course, if Buckingham did join up with Edward's party anywhere prior to arriving at Northampton, he very well might have picked up some hints of what was planned, the hurried coronation for example, and passed that information along to Richard. Doug Hilary wrote: You know the one thing that doesn't fit with all this is that we know that Rivers was, shall we say, risk averse. He'd usually got a pilgrimage up his sleeve when asked to do anything where he might possibly come to harm. Personally I think this smacks of Lady Macbeth (otherwise known as EW) and he had to do it because she'd got no-one else. And she was Queen. So she'd probably promised him those extra troops (which is why he didn't stop off at Coventry) and then, due to Hastings, it all fell through. Gives a real motive to get rid of Hastings doesn't it? So imagine Rivers knowing he's still got to go ahead with this, but without the support he was expecting. He must have been incredibly jittery. In fact could that be why he put Edward elsewhere? And if he was jittery, then even more reason for Richard to smell a rat. What about Buckingham in all this? Do you reckon he was 'doing a Stanley'? Had he heard on the Woodville grapevine that something like this might happen so made sure he was where the action was to step in and lend support to the winning side? I still can't think of any other real reason for his being there.
--
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: RE: [Richard III So

nico11238

Hi Hilary,

In a post about John Rushe, you mentioned a book about London merchants where he wasn't listed. Is it a directory and what is the name of it? Possibly, it could be helpful with something else I have been working on.

Nico

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-13 14:25:43

Hilary Jones

Yep Nico it's the Merchant Class of Medieval London by Sylvia L Thrupp. A very useful book. Can't remember how much it was but not extortionate. Cheers H
On Friday, 13 April 2018, 14:21:17 BST, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-13 15:22:04

Pamela Bain

I just found on Amazon, a hard cover for $22.00 and paperback for $12.00.

From: <>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Yep Nico it's the Merchant Class of Medieval London by Sylvia L Thrupp. A very useful book. Can't remember how much it was but not extortionate. Cheers H

On Friday, 13 April 2018, 14:21:17 BST, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-13 22:13:15

Nicholas Brown

Thanks, I just had a look on Amazon and it looks rather good. I think I will order a copy. Nico

On Friday, 13 April 2018, 15:22:29 GMT+1, Pamela Bain pbain@... [] <> wrote:

I just found on Amazon, a hard cover for $22.00 and paperback for $12.00.

From: <>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 8:26 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

Yep Nico it's the Merchant Class of Medieval London by Sylvia L Thrupp. A very useful book. Can't remember how much it was but not extortionate. Cheers H

On Friday, 13 April 2018, 14:21:17 BST, nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-16 21:54:41

mariewalsh2003

Just a warning on Thrupp- most of the merchants listed are slightly earlier than our period so it's not so useful for WotR era.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-16 22:29:22

Hilary Jones

So sorry Marie to partially disagree on this, but the Shaas, the Stokkers and loads of others of our period are listed. And the others from the 1300s, like the Whityngtons, help us understand the basis on which the wealth of the gentry/bourgeoisie (as Marx would say) was accumulated. Their wealth filtered through and altered society forever. It might not (so far) be directly associated with Richard, but its impact couldn't be ignored.
FWIW I actually think that the monarchy from EIV onwards faced a change compatible only with the Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century. Before that the king had to be a warrior who took 'the lads' to war overseas, married a foreign princess and had a brace of sons. And the guilds and the clergy looked after the rest. Easy if you did it right - if you didn't you died.
From 1460, the lads had self-extinguished, there were few foreign opportunities, the Queen was an Englishwoman and it was getting difficult to have a brace of sons. Add to this the fact that the clergy had diversified into the Law, Education and Politics and the merchant class had found a new way of creating money and independence that didn't involve chasing round in suits of armour. So the challenge was immense. I reckon we underestimate the challenge to kings from this era who were brought up in the old tradition - and I would have to include HT. Anything which helps us understand the transition is useful.
But I do agree, if you're looking at Richard in isolation, then you won't find the detail you may seek. H
the a On Monday, 16 April 2018, 21:54:45 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Just a warning on Thrupp- most of the merchants listed are slightly earlier than our period so it's not so useful for WotR era.

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-16 22:52:48

mariewalsh2003

Hi Hilary,
Re Thrupp, yes I'm sure it's invaluable as a sociological study. I have to be honest that isn't what I personally bought it for. I was hoping for potted biographies of individual London merchants I was encountering in my researches, and time and again, just like Russhe, they weren't there. I suppose it all depends what you want the book for.
Marie

Re: Buckingham's Rebellion and the Precontract

2018-04-16 23:07:32

Hilary Jones

Spot on !! :) H BTW I'll come back to John Rushe
On Monday, 16 April 2018, 22:52:56 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.