Following up on Gairdner

Listening to Daughter of Time yesterday (on BBC iPlayer) an exchange between Grant & Carradine caught my attention:

Oh, no. He was acknowledged Protector before he ever arrived in London.
How do you know that?
In the Patent Rolls he is called Protector on two occasionslet me seeApril 21st (that's less than a fortnight after Edward's death) and May the 2nd (that's two days before he arrived in London at all.)

I was able to track this back to Gairdner who wrote in his biography of Richard III

"...we may not unreasonably suspect that Richard was named protector even before he came to London. And that this was really the case is shown, I think, by two documents upon the Patent Roll, dated respectively 21st of April and 2nd of May, in which the Duke of Gloucester is styled Protector of England."

Checking the calendar of the patent rolls for the reign of Edward V, I do not find any patent dated May 2, and the entries describing patents dated April 21 do not mention Richard as Protector of England. John Gough Nichol's book Grants, &c., from the Crown during the Reign of Edward V, London, 1854; does not include the text of any patents pre-dating May 14th referring to Richard as Protector.

Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Or does anyone know if the full texts of the patents referenced have been printed anywhere?

A J

Daughter of Time on radio. Richard saying « Oh those Woodvilles! » grrr. Dramatised bits outside hospital really bad, but Grant and Carradine and nurses parts not bad.

Listening to Daughter of Time yesterday (on BBC iPlayer) an exchange between Grant & Carradine caught my attention:

Oh, no. He was acknowledged Protector before he ever arrived in London.
How do you know that?
In the Patent Rolls he is called Protector on two occasionslet me seeApril 21st (that's less than a fortnight after Edward's death) and May the 2nd (that's two days before he arrived in London at all.)

I was able to track this back to Gairdner who wrote in his biography of Richard III

"...we may not unreasonably suspect that Richard was named protector even before he came to London. And that this was really the case is shown, I think, by two documents upon the Patent Roll, dated respectively 21st of April and 2nd of May, in which the Duke of Gloucester is styled Protector of England."

Checking the calendar of the patent rolls for the reign of Edward V, I do not find any patent dated May 2, and the entries describing patents dated April 21 do not mention Richard as Protector of England. John Gough Nichol's book Grants, &c., from the Crown during the Reign of Edward V, London, 1854; does not include the text of any patents pre-dating May 14th referring to Richard as Protector.

Can anyone shed any light on this issue? Or does anyone know if the full texts of the patents referenced have been printed anywhere?

A J

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.

Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.

I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.

Edward etc To the fermors tenauntes & occupiers of al suche landes & tenementes As Anthony Erle Ryvers late had of the yeft & graunt of the most famouse prince of noble memorie my lord & fader whome god assoile in Wodham Martyne in our Counte of Essex and to al other oure officers true liegemene & subgettes hering or seeng these oure lettres greting / We lat you wit that for diverse causes & consideracions us moving and by thadvise of oure most entirely beoved Uncle the duc of Gloucestre protector & defensor of this oure Royaulme during oure yong Age / We have yeven & graunted unto oure welbeloved servaunt Robert Belle al the said landes & tenements with al maner Rentes Revenues & avauntages to the same belonging for terme of his liff Wherfore we wolle & charge you alle & every of you that ye permitte & suffre oure said servaunt to occupie & enioye the same landes & tenementes without let or interrupcione as ye & eery of you entende to advoide oure grevouse displeasure and answere unto us at youre perilles Yoven etc the ijde day of Maij

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.

Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.

I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.

Volume 3 p 10

Edward etc To the fermors tenauntes & occupiers of al suche landes & tenementes As Anthony Erle Ryvers late had of the yeft & graunt of the most famouse prince of noble memorie my lord & fader whome god assoile in Wodham Martyne in our Counte of Essex and to al other oure officers true liegemene & subgettes hering or seeng these oure lettres greting / We lat you wit that for diverse causes & consideracions us moving and by thadvise of oure most entirely beoved Uncle the duc of Gloucestre protector & defensor of this oure Royaulme during oure yong Age / We have yeven & graunted unto oure welbeloved servaunt Robert Belle al the said landes & tenements with al maner Rentes Revenues & avauntages to the same belonging for terme of his liff Wherfore we wolle & charge you alle & every of you that ye permitte & suffre oure said servaunt to occupie & enioye the same landes & tenementes without let or interrupcione as ye & eery of you entende to advoide oure grevouse displeasure and answere unto us at youre perilles Yoven etc the ijde day of Maij

AJ wrote:

Harl ms has one entry dated May 2 that mentions Richard as Protector. Still in search of the text of something from April.

Marie:

I'd be interested in the volume and page ref, please, if you could, as that's earlier than the date quoted by Annette Carson in her booklet on Richard as Protector and Constable.

I know Annette looked hard for an April reference and couldn't find one. Not surprising when you consider that the Woodvilles dominated the Council in April, but also there is almost nothing in the way of government docs surviving from April 1483.

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.

It would be lovely, Paul, if 'most entirely beloved uncle' could be relied on as an expression of Edward V's feelings. The language is, unfortunately, entirely formulaic, the medieval royal equivalent of 'Dear Sir'. Edward V was not yet ruling in his own right, and the reference to the advice of his uncle is also a formula to acknowledge that fact. In other words, the letter is really Richard's.

It would be lovely, Paul, if 'most entirely beloved uncle' could be relied on as an expression of Edward V's feelings. The language is, unfortunately, entirely formulaic, the medieval royal equivalent of 'Dear Sir'. Edward V was not yet ruling in his own right, and the reference to the advice of his uncle is also a formula to acknowledge that fact. In other words, the letter is really Richard's.

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.

To Hilary and A. J.

I'm not sure I'm following, to be honest. I'm simply trying to tease out the facts - what I or anyone else would like to be the case isn't relevant.

Annette's book explains the background. The office of Protector had been invented by Henry V on his deathbed, but the parliament held after his death ruled that a king had no right to dictate what happened after is own death and promptly modified his wishes. In 1453 York was installed as Protector by Parliament. This is the precedent.

Also, bear in mind that the Council couldn't put Richard's name to any of the documents which they issued before he reached London because they couldn't ask him for his approval. It's a simple practicality. I don't know about the of 21 April which Gairdner cites, but he says that this and the one dated 2 May are in the Patent Roll, but the 2 May one doesn't seem to be - it is only in Harley 433. Gairdner remarks that John Gough Nichols believed these items were misdated, but all Nichols says ('Grants from the Crown during the reign of Edward V') is:-

"I have now ascertained, from the Patent Roll of Edward V, that the office of Protector was assumed by the Duke of Gloucester at least so early as the 14th of May; for it was on that day that new commissions of the peace were directed into several counties, and in these commissions his name was inserted as 'carissimo avunculo nostril Ricardo duci Gloucestrie protector Anglie.'"

He makes no mention of these supposed entries of 21 April and 2 May.

It would seem to me, given the error over the provenance of the 2 May document, that Gairdner was writing from memory and he may have been wrong about the 21 April item as well.

Richard couldn't very well have issued a patent on 21 April where he was, because patents went out under the Great Seal (this is why the patent rolls are Chancery rolls) and Richard did not have access to the Great Seal at that time. He would have had to have issued a warrant about a week before that and sent it down to London - but he did not have either the Privy Seal or Signet with him with which to validate such a warrant. It's a non-starter.

AJ, what I was suggesting is not that Richard took the office of protector to himself on the way to London without council approval (that would be the inference if one accepts the date on it, but I don't), but that the copy of this letter in Harley 433 must have been wrongly dated. And if there is a reference to Richard as protector in the Patent Rolls dated 21 April, Nichols evidently didn't find it.

The record of the Baynards council meeting of 8 May in the Archbishop's register doesn't name Richard as Protector, by the way.

Incidentally I think we can assume Richard was accepted as Protector by 13 May when the writs were issued for parliament, as the main reason that parliament was being called was to ratify Richard's continuing as Protector after the coronation.

.

That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.
Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.
Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former. H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.

Paul is correct  as Carson makes clear.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Paul Trevor Bale bale.paul-trevor@... []
Sent: 16 February 2018 14:37
To:
Subject: Re: Following up on Gairdner


Sorry Hilary but where did you get the idea the council could remove the Constableship from Richard? Between the death of one monarch and the coronation of the next the Constable carried all the powers of the monarch as if he were in fact king. Nobody could take those powers away. Any attempt would be an act of high treason, as Rivers discovered to his cost!
Paul

Envoyé de mon iPad

Le 16 févr. 2018 à 11:13, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> a écrit :

That's interesting because Ross (or Croyland or Mancini) has Bourchier as one of those not present at the meeting of the Council called by the Woodvilles before Richard and Edward got there.

Quite honestly I think we can start arguing against ourselves on this. If the Council had approved of Woodville-led rule and disapproved of Richard's actions en route then they would have declared appropriately - after all as you say they were led by the most senior bishop and Hastings was the captain of the Calais garrison - and they had the power to withdraw Richard's post as Constable via disappointment.

Although we have no piece of paper confirming Richard's protectorship, the Council's action or rather lack of action, actually says it all. If we say Richard needed that to have acted with the written agreement of the Council then we stray into the territory so beloved of Horspool and others - that they were forced to agree this under military duress. I think I prefer the former.. H

On Thursday, 15 February 2018, 19:34:59 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Thanks very much for this, AJ.
It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.
The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".
This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.
I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?
If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.
So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.
I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.

That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

No, she confirms that the continuous service of the Constable is a fact. QED.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:28
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Following up on Gairdner


The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.

Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him.

Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point. All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H

On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.

Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Thanks very much for this, AJ.

It sort of rings bells in that I think there may have been a document that Annette wasn't sure had been properly dated because it so far predated the rest.

The first thing about this warrant is that it's issued by Edward V on the advice of his uncle Gloucester. On 2 May, however, they were both back at Northampton, where "Edward V" also wrote to Cardinal Bourchier ordering him to take control of the Great Seal and the royal treasure; yet this entry is in the docket book of the Privy Seal office. Also, the letter to Cardinal Bourchier doesn't mention Richard as Protector - it is simply headed "By the King".

This instruction to bailiffs also seems a bit hasty given that Edward could hardly have had time to make out the grant to Belle. And the granting away of lands given by Edward IV to Earl Rivers seems equally over-hasty.

I do wonder if the date should not have read xij or even xxij May?

If the date is genuine, then it would also mean Richard took the title of Protector before reaching London and obtaining the Council's approval, which seems to be belied by the letter to Bourchier.

So far as I can ascertain, the chief person in the realm during the interim between one king's death and the establishment of his successor was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Hence Edward V asking him to take control of the Great Seal and the treasure.

I think Annette's conclusion was that Richard's official recognition as Protector followed an important council meeting chaired by Cardinal Bourchier at Baynards Castle on 8 May.

No, she confirms that the continuous service of the Constable is a fact. QED.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 19 February 2018 17:28
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Following up on Gairdner


The point I was making was that no-one seems to have opposed Richard's office as Constable in Spring 1483. Which was good.

Because the Council could have done since they didn't have to adhere to the wishes of a dead king. No-one could stop them. In fact both Humphrey Stafford and Rivers senior could have been said to have been disappointed - because they were taken out by another regime which at the time had the upper hand. And that could have happened to Richard in April 1483 - lucky it didn't. And it proves the measure of support he had from those on the Council like Ferrers, Howard and Hastings. Don't know why you're arguing over a good thing; it proves he didn't need to undertake an armed coup and seize control, which is what his detractors claim. In other words, the majority of the Council obviously trusted him.

Carson, like me, used Ross and Roskell as her starting point. All the rest has to be interpretation because there were no contemporary statutes against which to measure and judge and control. Therefore the regime which had the upper hand at the time could do whatever it wanted. There was no Separation of Powers to check it, no Acts to invoke - something which is built into modern day constitutions, written or unwritten, to prevent exactly such a thing happening today. H

On Sunday, 18 February 2018, 21:50:00 GMT, stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:


That is perfectly true about the Protectorship  of course, as Carson points out early in TMK, nobody challenged Richard's right to that position so Edward IV's will must have assigned it to him. Furthermore, he was the new King's only surviving paternal uncle so there was no John of Bedford to complicate the situation.

The post of Lord High Constable, as her next chapter points out, is entirely a different thing. Right up to 1521, when Henry VIII had Edward of Buckingham beheaded, it was permanent. Records will show that only an adult king ever disappointed a Constable, except when Warwick ended Rivers' tenure. Henry III's minority only changed Constable when a de Bohun appointee died naturally and Henry VI's minority only changed Constable at Bedford's death. It is very doubtful that a minor king's Council could disappoint a Constable although a Regent or Protector possibly could.

So, until Edward V came of age, the Duke of Gloucester's appointment continued.

Re governing during a minority prior to parliamentary approval of government, it seems to me there's a further problem because the council also consisted entirely of people appointed by the late king, so before a parliamentary settlement was reached had no more right to impose its will than the protector named by the late king.

This, I believe, is why Richard involved Cardinal Bourchier as caretaker until things were sorted out and believed that the Cardinal could force Rotherham to deliver the Great Seal to him: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of the realm, and hath precedence, after the blood royal, before all the peers of the realm and the great officers of state" (Letter to the Archbishop of York by R. M. Beverley, 1831).

It's notable that the council seems to have attempted to do very little (just a couple of unavoidable appointments) before the arrival of Edward V and the reaching of a working agreement with Richard and the Archbishop c. 10-13 May.

Just my take.

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.

Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Hilary wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Annette can't confirm Stephen because neither she, nor anyone else, knows what would have happened had the Council taken the side of the Woodvilles. For my sins, once in the Stone Age I did a degree in Government and Constitutional Law. You can't predict the actions of Absolute Monarchy or the Council set up its place.

Marie:

I think the issue here is that the Council of April 1483 hadn't been 'set up' in any constitutional sense - i.e. the king who had appointed its members was dead and since 422 had been deemed to have no constitutional authority to influence anything that happened after his death (the parliament of 1422 doesn't seem to have quite grasped the nettle with that one).

As a consequence, people do seem to have been falling back on considerations of natural precedence. Most councillors backed Richard's claim to lead the council not just because Edward IV had appointed him as Protector, and not just because they preferred him to the Woodvilles, but because he was the senior adult male of the blood royal. The Woodvilles, although just as closely related to the young king (more so in the case of EW) were not of the blood royal and so could not claim any natural right to govern the realm.

It is probably for similar reasons of precedence that Richard took the decision to encourage Cardinal Bourchier to take the Great Seal (the physical instrument of government) into his hands and oversee the council whilst an agreed solution could be thrashed out (and Bourchier's record of the meeting of 7 May doesn't even use the word council, just describing those present as 'noble men of the realm'). The solution agreed involved a modified protectorship pro tem, and parliamentary ratification of a protectorship with wider powers as soon as it could possibly be achieved, i.e. the statutory 40 days from the issue of the writs.

The Woodvilles' preferred solution was to follow the precedent of the 1420s (though not of the 1450s) and use a rushed coronation to bring an end to Richard's claim to be protector, and thereafter use their personal influence with Edward V to steer the government. It would have been helpful to them, in that regard, that the Chancellor, Thomas Rotherham, was a sympathiser.

Both solutions had some constitutional justification, but it would seem, from Mancini and Crowland, that the majority of the lords were unhappy with the Woodville solution, which would vest power in a family not of the blood royal.

Marie wrote:

Re governing during a minority prior to parliamentary approval of government, it seems to me there's a further problem because the council also consisted entirely of people appointed by the late king, so before a parliamentary settlement was reached had no more right to impose its will than the protector named by the late king.

This, I believe, is why Richard involved Cardinal Bourchier as caretaker until things were sorted out and believed that the Cardinal could force Rotherham to deliver the Great Seal to him: "The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first peer of the realm, and hath precedence, after the blood royal, before all the peers of the realm and the great officers of state" (Letter to the Archbishop of York by R. M. Beverley, 1831).

It's notable that the council seems to have attempted to do very little (just a couple of unavoidable appointments) before the arrival of Edward V and the reaching of a working agreement with Richa rd and the Archbishop c. 10-13 May.

Just my take.

Hilary wrote:

Thanks for all this Carol. I'd love to know that nickname! H
On Monday, 26 February 2018, 22:34:42 GMT, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Carol wrote:

Thanks, Marie. I think it's Wednesday in England now or close to it. Still Tuesday here.

Marie:

Actually, it was Tuesday evening, and I had said *after* Wednesday as I was travelling on Tuesday and would have a lot to sort out on my return home. But I don't mind being nagged.

I have looked at Northumberland now though, and I see no real reason to suppose he was in London in the spring of 1483 (not after the dissolution of parliament, anyway):

1) He had no role in Edward's funeral;

2) He was not present at the council meeting at Baynards Castle on 7 May,

3) In June, Richard chose him to bring the troop down from the North, so my guess is that he was in the North and Richard wrote to give him the commission at the same time as he wrote to Lord Neville and the city of York.

It is true that indentures of appointment as Captain of Berwick town and castle were drawn up for him on 10 and 20 May, but there's no indication that he set his seal to them at that time.

It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018, 9:03 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Carol wrote:

Thanks, Marie. I think it's Wednesday in England now or close to it. Still Tuesday here.

Marie:

Actually, it was Tuesday evening, and I had said *after* Wednesday as I was travelling on Tuesday and would have a lot to sort out on my return home. But I don't mind being nagged.

I have looked at Northumberland now though, and I see no real reason to suppose he was in London in the spring of 1483 (not after the dissolution of parliament, anyway):

1) He had no role in Edward's funeral;

2) He was not present at the council meeting at Baynards Castle on 7 May,

3) In June, Richard chose him to bring the troop down from the North, so my guess is that he was in the North and Richard wrote to give him the commission at the same time as he wrote to Lord Neville and the city of York.

It is true that indentures of appointment as Captain of Berwick town and castle were drawn up for him on 10 and 20 May, but there's no indication that he set his seal to them at that time.

It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?

Reply to Hilary's nudge:

I looked at Crowland's Latin last night, and it doesn't get us any further. A very quick translation is as follows:

And, when he arrived at Northampton where the Duke of Buckingham joined him, there came thither to pay their respects to him Anthony Earl Rivers, the King's maternal uncle, and Richard Grey, a most noble knight and the same king's uterine brother, and also others sent by his nephew the King in order to submit everything that was to be done to the judgement of his paternal uncle the Duke of Gloucester. At their first coming they were received with an excessively cheerful and merry expression, and sitting at the Duke's table at dinner they passed that whole time in intensely agreeable conversation. At length Henry Duke of Buckingham similarly arrived, and because the hour was late they each turned in to their lodgings.

What I and Pronay & Cox have translated as "joined him" is sese ei associavit - it's plain old perfect indicative, in other words simple past tense.

The verb used for 'arrive' in each instance (1. Richard, 2. Rivers & Grey, and 3. Buckingham at the end of dinner) is the same - applico.

I do think we are meant to read it as Buckingham arriving after dinner. Doug may be right and this is the result of two separate accounts being amalgamated. It might also be the result of the account having been dictated, or written up from notes with a lot of crossings out and additions which made it hard to follow.

The hostile accounts interpret Richard's happy face as dissimulation, but what always strikes me is that things change once Buckingham has arrived and had a chance to talk to Richard on his own.

"It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?"

Carol responds:

Thanks for the information on Northumberland.

With regard to that May 4 coronation, I would suppose that the attendees would be more or less the same as those who attended Edward IV's funeral. Do we know who those people were? For example, was Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk there with her husband and eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln? She played a prominent role in *Richard's* coronation.

Carol

Reply to Hilary's nudge:

I looked at Crowland's Latin last night, and it doesn't get us any further. A very quick translation is as follows:

And, when he arrived at Northampton where the Duke of Buckingham joined him, there came thither to pay their respects to him Anthony Earl Rivers, the King's maternal uncle, and Richard Grey, a most noble knight and the same king's uterine brother, and also others sent by his nephew the King in order to submit everything that was to be done to the judgement of his paternal uncle the Duke of Gloucester. At their first coming they were received with an excessively cheerful and merry expression, and sitting at the Duke's table at dinner they passed that whole time in intensely agreeable conversation. At length Henry Duke of Buckingham similarly arrived, and because the hour was late they each turned in to their lodgings.

What I and Pronay & Cox have translated as "joined him" is sese ei associavit - it's plain old perfect indicative, in other words simple past tense.

The verb used for 'arrive' in each instance (1. Richard, 2. Rivers & Grey, and 3. Buckingham at the end of dinner) is the same - applico.

I do think we are meant to read it as Buckingham arriving after dinner. Doug may be right and this is the result of two separate accounts being amalgamated. It might also be the result of the account having been dictated, or written up from notes with a lot of crossings out and additions which made it hard to follow.

The hostile accounts interpret Richard's happy face as dissimulation, but what always strikes me is that things change once Buckingham has arrived and had a chance to talk to Richard on his own.

Marie wrote:

"It does beg the question of how well attended that 4 May coronation would have been doesn't it?"

Carol responds:

Thanks for the information on Northumberland.

With regard to that May 4 coronation, I would suppose that the attendees would be more or less the same as those who attended Edward IV's funeral. Do we know who those people were? For example, was Elizabeth, Duchess of Suffolk there with her husband and eldest son, John, Earl of Lincoln? She played a prominent role in *Richard's* coronation.

Carol