Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

I belatedly found the source for Richard's letter to the council. It was, as I suspected, Mancini. I've had the reference all this time in Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book and never once thought to look there!

Anyway, Mancini says, "[The Duke of Gloucester] wrote to the council [declaring that he] had been loyal to his brother Edward, at home and abroad, in peace and war, and would be, if only permitted, equally loyal to his brother's issue. . . . This letter had a great effect on the minds of the council, who, as they had previously favoured the duke in their hearts from a belief in his integrity, now began to support him openly and aloud; so that it was commonly said by all that the duke deserved the government. . . ." (, p. 43, ellipses and bracketed passages verbatim from Dockray).

While Mancini's source for this passage is probably the same as that for the letter or letters to Richard from Hastings ("common report"), it's interesting that the tone here is so different from that a few pages later when he has Richard removing all obstacles to his path to the throne. And the (paraphrased) letter certainly does state the truth about Richard's past loyalty and intended future loyalty. Also, if Mancini is right about the effects of the letter (and I have no reason to doubt him here), the council approved his actions at Stony Stratford. Indeed, they must have done so or they would never have approved his appointment as Protector whatever Edward's will had stated.

Unfortunately, Dockray omits the events at Stony Stratford so I can't see what Mancini has to say there. If I recall correctly, he has Richard asking Rivers to meet him at Northampton, which is certainly more plausible than Croyland's assertion that "there came thither for the purpose of paying their respects to him, Antony, earl of Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey . . . together with several others who had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle, the duke of Gloucester." But earlier, the chronicler has Richard *and* Buckingham writing to "*the young king in Wales* [not to Rivers, who would have been in charge] to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent. The king assented to them and did as they requested." (Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth Field," p. 95).

I can't begin to list all the things that are wrong or suspicious about this passage, but I'll just note that Richard's three hundred men in mourning were hardly likely to make the already large and splendidly dressed retinue more magnificent, nor would Richard (as the highest ranking adult member of the royal family, the king's uncle, the Lord High Constable, and the soon-to-be Protector) need any such motive for joining the king--or taking him in custody, as was his right and duty. And, of course, the passage completely ignores Rivers.

Anyway, to me it seems likely that Richard did write a letter (minus Buckingham), but to Rivers, not the boy king. Whether he suggested a place to meet that he knew would be on Rivers' way or left that up to Rivers, we have no way of knowing. But we can be sure that he expected the king to be with Rivers, not twelve(?) miles further down the road at Stony Stratford.

Those of you who've been discussing Rivers' route and are familiar with English geography: What about Richard's route? Did he go out of his way? If so, he had certainly corresponded with Rivers and agreed to meet him (and the king!) at Northampton. And Rivers would have known that their meeting had nothing to do with magnificence and everything to do with Richard's right to escort the young king.

Carol

I belatedly found the source for Richard's letter to the council. It was, as I suspected, Mancini. I've had the reference all this time in Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book and never once thought to look there!

Anyway, Mancini says, "[The Duke of Gloucester] wrote to the council [declaring that he] had been loyal to his brother Edward, at home and abroad, in peace and war, and would be, if only permitted, equally loyal to his brother's issue. . . . This letter had a great effect on the minds of the council, who, as they had previously favoured the duke in their hearts from a belief in his integrity, now began to support him openly and aloud; so that it was commonly said by all that the duke deserved the government. . . ." (, p. 43, ellipses and bracketed passages verbatim from Dockray).

While Mancini's source for this passage is probably the same as that for the letter or letters to Richard from Hastings ("common report"), it's interesting that the tone here is so different from that a few pages later when he has Richard removing all obstacles to his path to the throne. And the (paraphrased) letter certainly does state the truth about Richard's past loyalty and intended future loyalty. Also, if Mancini is right about the effects of the letter (and I have no reason to doubt him here), the council approved his actions at Stony Stratford. Indeed, they must have done so or they would never have approved his appointment as Protector whatever Edward's will had stated.

Unfortunately, Dockray omits the events at Stony Stratford so I can't see what Mancini has to say there. If I recall correctly, he has Richard asking Rivers to meet him at Northampton, which is certainly more plausible than Croyland's assertion that "there came thither for the purpose of paying their respects to him, Antony, earl of Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey . . . together with several others who had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle, the duke of Gloucester." But earlier, the chronicler has Richard *and* Buckingham writing to "*the young king in Wales* [not to Rivers, who would have been in charge] to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent. The king assented to them and did as they requested." (Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth Field," p. 95).

I can't begin to list all the things that are wrong or suspicious about this passage, but I'll just note that Richard's three hundred men in mourning were hardly likely to make the already large and splendidly dressed retinue more magnificent, nor would Richard (as the highest ranking adult member of the royal family, the king's uncle, the Lord High Constable, and the soon-to-be Protector) need any such motive for joining the king--or taking him in custody, as was his right and duty. And, of course, the passage completely ignores Rivers.

Anyway, to me it seems likely that Richard did write a letter (minus Buckingham), but to Rivers, not the boy king. Whether he suggested a place to meet that he knew would be on Rivers' way or left that up to Rivers, we have no way of knowing. But we can be sure that he expected the king to be with Rivers, not twelve(?) miles further down the road at Stony Stratford.

Those of you who've been discussing Rivers' route and are familiar with English geography: What about Richard's route? Did he go out of his way? If so, he had certainly corresponded with Rivers and agreed to meet him (and the king!) at Northampton. And Rivers would have known that their meeting had nothing to do with magnificence and everything to do with Richard's right to escort the young king.

Carol

I belatedly found the source for Richard's letter to the council. It was, as I suspected, Mancini. I've had the reference all this time in Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book and never once thought to look there!

Anyway, Mancini says, "[The Duke of Gloucester] wrote to the council [declaring that he] had been loyal to his brother Edward, at home and abroad, in peace and war, and would be, if only permitted, equally loyal to his brother's issue. . . . This letter had a great effect on the minds of the council, who, as they had previously favoured the duke in their hearts from a belief in his integrity, now began to support him openly and aloud; so that it was commonly said by all that the duke deserved the government. . . ." (, p. 43, ellipses and bracketed passages verbatim from Dockray).

While Mancini's source for this passage is probably the same as that for the letter or letters to Richard from Hastings ("common report"), it's interesting that the tone here is so different from that a few pages later when he has Richard removing all obstacles to his path to the throne. And the (paraphrased) letter certainly does state the truth about Richard's past loyalty and intended future loyalty. Also, if Mancini is right about the effects of the letter (and I have no reason to doubt him here), the council approved his actions at Stony Stratford. Indeed, they must have done so or they would never have approved his appointment as Protector whatever Edward's will had stated.

Unfortunately, Dockray omits the events at Stony Stratford so I can't see what Mancini has to say there. If I recall correctly, he has Richard asking Rivers to meet him at Northampton, which is certainly more plausible than Croyland's assertion that "there came thither for the purpose of paying their respects to him, Antony, earl of Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey . . . together with several others who had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle, the duke of Gloucester." But earlier, the chronicler has Richard *and* Buckingham writing to "*the young king in Wales* [not to Rivers, who would have been in charge] to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent. The king assented to them and did as they requested." (Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth Field," p. 95).

I can't begin to list all the things that are wrong or suspicious about this passage, but I'll just note that Richard's three hundred men in mourning were hardly likely to make the already large and splendidly dressed retinue more magnificent, nor would Richard (as the highest ranking adult member of the royal family, the king's uncle, the Lord High Constable, and the soon-to-be Protector) need any such motive for joining the king--or taking him in custody, as was his right and duty. And, of course, the passage completely ignores Rivers.

Anyway, to me it seems likely that Richard did write a letter (minus Buckingham), but to Rivers, not the boy king. Whether he suggested a place to meet that he knew would be on Rivers' way or left that up to Rivers, we have no way of knowing. But we can be sure that he expected the king to be with Rivers, not twelve(?) miles further down the road at Stony Stratford.

Those of you who've been discussing Rivers' route and are familiar with English geography: What about Richard's route? Did he go out of his way? If so, he had certainly corresponded with Rivers and agreed to meet him (and the king!) at Northampton. And Rivers would have known that their meeting had nothing to do with magnificence and everything to do with Richard's right to escort the young king.

I belatedly found the source for Richard's letter to the council. It was, as I suspected, Mancini. I've had the reference all this time in Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book and never once thought to look there!

Anyway, Mancini says, "[The Duke of Gloucester] wrote to the council [declaring that he] had been loyal to his brother Edward, at home and abroad, in peace and war, and would be, if only permitted, equally loyal to his brother's issue. . . . This letter had a great effect on the minds of the council, who, as they had previously favoured the duke in their hearts from a belief in his integrity, now began to support him openly and aloud; so that it was commonly said by all that the duke deserved the government. . . ." (, p. 43, ellipses and bracketed passages verbatim from Dockray).

While Mancini's source for this passage is probably the same as that for the letter or letters to Richard from Hastings ("common report"), it's interesting that the tone here is so different from that a few pages later when he has Richard removing all obstacles to his path to the throne. And the (paraphrased) letter certainly does state the truth about Richard's past loyalty and intended future loyalty. Also, if Mancini is right about the effects of the letter (and I have no reason to doubt him here), the council approved his actions at Stony Stratford. Indeed, they must have done so or they would never have approved his appointment as Protector whatever Edward's will had stated.

Unfortunately, Dockray omits the events at Stony Stratford so I can't see what Mancini has to say there. If I recall correctly, he has Richard asking Rivers to meet him at Northampton, which is certainly more plausible than Croyland's assertion that "there came thither for the purpose of paying their respects to him, Antony, earl of Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey . . . together with several others who had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle, the duke of Gloucester." But earlier, the chronicler has Richard *and* Buckingham writing to "*the young king in Wales* [not to Rivers, who would have been in charge] to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent. The king assented to them and did as they requested." (Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth Field," p. 95).

I can't begin to list all the things that are wrong or suspicious about this passage, but I'll just note that Richard's three hundred men in mourning were hardly likely to make the already large and splendidly dressed retinue more magnificent, nor would Richard (as the highest ranking adult member of the royal family, the king's uncle, the Lord High Constable, and the soon-to-be Protector) need any such motive for joining the king--or taking him in custody, as was his right and duty. And, of course, the passage completely ignores Rivers.

Anyway, to me it seems likely that Richard did write a letter (minus Buckingham), but to Rivers, not the boy king. Whether he suggested a place to meet that he knew would be on Rivers' way or left that up to Rivers, we have no way of knowing. But we can be sure that he expected the king to be with Rivers, not twelve(?) miles further down the road at Stony Stratford.

Those of you who've been discussing Rivers' route and are familiar with English geography: What about Richard's route? Did he go out of his way? If so, he had certainly corresponded with Rivers and agreed to meet him (and the king!) at Northampton. And Rivers would have known that their meeting had nothing to do with magnificence and everything to do with Richard's right to escort the young king.

Just another thought on roads and ambushes Doug. Firstly, I don't think Richard would have taken the Fosse, it's two far north. I think he would come across from Peterborough via Oundle/Fotheringhay to Northampton and then joined the A5, probably at Stony Stratford. I do quite a bit of work in East Anglia and that's they way my GPS always takes me - and it has no motorways!
But I think there's something else about Rivers and Northampton and I don't think it's just about Grafton Regis. I reckon it's about the geography of the countryside if you're going to ambush someone.
We're trained to think of ambushes in forests because of the likes of Robin Hood and Ivanhoe and we know the Hastings and Grey gangs actually did a lot of that (when they weren't having a brawl in Leicester High Street). If I was Rivers and had been ordered to ambush Richard I certainly wouldn't want to go as far as the Great North Road (where Richard was in relatively friendly countryside) or even to the other side of Northampton. You see there the countryside opens out and begins to take on some of the flatness (and winds) of the fens. Quite difficult to conceal yourself. Once you get to Stony Stratford the landscape again changes to the openness of Bedfordshire which takes you virtually to St Albans and London. There are hills too, great for scouts.
So the only opportunity is in the leafy narrow lanes of Northamptonshire between Northampton and Stony Stratford which, very conveniently passes by Grafton. If you do a Google map and place your little man on the A508 you can actually walk through the village. What is quite odd about it, even today, is that whereas most roads from Roman times went through the middle of villages the A508 skirts one side of it. I wonder if the estate on the other side of it was owned by the Woodvilles? Reading Wiki this could have been the case And the way the village was planned would mean that fewer people would witness if any prisoners or corpses were escorted to the manor. H
PS a technical point - who would empower Rivers to muster troops in the counties, that was the job of the High Sheriffs (or the Constable)? The Council doesn't seem to have issued any orders to them to do so. The High Sheriff at this point in Northants was Roger Wake, who went on to fight for Richard at Bosworth.
On Tuesday, 27 February 2018, 20:18:58 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I belatedly found the source for Richard's letter to the council. It was, as I suspected, Mancini. I've had the reference all this time in Dockray's "Richard III: A Source Book and never once thought to look there!

Anyway, Mancini says, "[The Duke of Gloucester] wrote to the council [declaring that he] had been loyal to his brother Edward, at home and abroad, in peace and war, and would be, if only permitted, equally loyal to his brother's issue. . . . This letter had a great effect on the minds of the council, who, as they had previously favoured the duke in their hearts from a belief in his integrity, now began to support him openly and aloud; so that it was commonly said by all that the duke deserved the government. . . ." (, p. 43, ellipses and bracketed passages verbatim from Dockray).

While Mancini's source for this passage is probably the same as that for the letter or letters to Richard from Hastings ("common report"), it's interesting that the tone here is so different from that a few pages later when he has Richard removing all obstacles to his path to the throne. And the (paraphrased) letter certainly does state the truth about Richard's past loyalty and intended future loyalty. Also, if Mancini is right about the effects of the letter (and I have no reason to doubt him here), the council approved his actions at Stony Stratford. Indeed, they must have done so or they would never have approved his appointment as Protector whatever Edward's will had stated.

Unfortunately, Dockray omits the events at Stony Stratford so I can't see what Mancini has to say there. If I recall correctly, he has Richard asking Rivers to meet him at Northampton, which is certainly more plausible than Croyland's assertion that "there came thither for the purpose of paying their respects to him, Antony, earl of Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey . . . together with several others who had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle, the duke of Gloucester." But earlier, the chronicler has Richard *and* Buckingham writing to "*the young king in Wales* [not to Rivers, who would have been in charge] to ascertain from him on what day and by what route he intended to enter the capital, so coming from the country they could alter their course and join him, that in their company his entry to the city might be more magnificent. The king assented to them and did as they requested." (Hammond and Sutton, "Road to Bosworth Field," p. 95).

I can't begin to list all the things that are wrong or suspicious about this passage, but I'll just note that Richard's three hundred men in mourning were hardly likely to make the already large and splendidly dressed retinue more magnificent, nor would Richard (as the highest ranking adult member of the royal family, the king's uncle, the Lord High Constable, and the soon-to-be Protector) need any such motive for joining the king--or taking him in custody, as was his right and duty. And, of course, the passage completely ignores Rivers.

Anyway, to me it seems likely that Richard did write a letter (minus Buckingham), but to Rivers, not the boy king. Whether he suggested a place to meet that he knew would be on Rivers' way or left that up to Rivers, we have no way of knowing. But we can be sure that he expected the king to be with Rivers, not twelve(?) miles further down the road at Stony Stratford.

Those of you who've been discussing Rivers' route and are familiar with English geography: What about Richard's route? Did he go out of his way? If so, he had certainly corresponded with Rivers and agreed to meet him (and the king!) at Northampton. And Rivers would have known that their meeting had nothing to do with magnificence and everything to do with Richard's right to escort the young king.

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 3:41 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

One thing we know for sure about Richard's route is that he went through Nottingham because it's recorded in the town records.. Wouldn't the quickest route from Nottingham to Northampton have been via Leicester?
Marie

I didn't know that. The current M1 route. So that would lead him, I'd have thought to the A5. So why did he too deviate to Northampton when the A5 is I would have thought the quickest route?  If you get diverted off the M1/M6 it takes you through a warren of Leicestershire villages to get back en route. Do we know why he called at Nottingham?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018, 3:41 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

One thing we know for sure about Richard's route is that he went through Nottingham because it's recorded in the town records... Wouldn't the quickest route from Nottingham to Northampton have been via Leicester?
Marie

One thing we know for sure about Richard's route is that he went through Nottingham because it's recorded in the town records.. Wouldn't the quickest route from Nottingham to Northampton have been via Leicester?
Marie

Marie,
I found a map of the "Royal roads" at this link:
https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-royal-roads-of-early-england-part-i.html
which has a road going from York to Nottingham. Then there's a bit of a gap
between Nottingham and the Foss Way, which ran from Lincoln to Ilchester and
passed through Leicester.
I know I've read that the road/s from Leicester to Northampton via Market
Harborough were well=known and used; it may have been in the articles about
those "Royal Roads, but If I understand it properly, the road from Leicester
to High Cross (where the Foss Way crossed Watling Street) and then from High
Cross to Northampton form the two sides of an obtuse triangle, while the
road from Leicester to Northampton via Market Harborough forms a rough
hypotenuse. I haven't measured the distance, but I imagine Richard's escort
could make just as good time along the roads from Leicester to Market
Harborough and then on to Northampton as they could going from Leicester via
High Cross to Towcester/Northampton. FWIW, the road from Market Harborough
goes directly to Northampton, as opposed to having to leave Watling Street
at Towcester and still ride another 10-12 miles to Northampton. Perhaps that
would be a deciding point?
Doug

One thing we know for sure about Richard's route is that he went through
Nottingham because it's recorded in the town records. Wouldn't the quickest
route from Nottingham to Northampton have been via Leicester?
Marie

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

------------------------------------

Yahoo Groups Links

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

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

Sorry my reply went awol - so hard on phone.

Richard wasn't diverting - he was on one of the best used routes- I can check itineraries for EIV and RIII when I get home but I'm sure this route was common. Northampton wouldn't have been as large as it was, with so much accommodation, were it not on a major crossroads. Remember that medieval roads linked towns, and many towns and villages only existed because of them. It was a different way of doing things which only started to change with the faster travel demands of the stagecoach era.
Check out page 49 of this pdf:
https://usir.salford.ac.uk/14831/1/D083029.pdf

One of the major issues that Henry VII had to deal with was retaining. Retaining was a problem that had haunted ...

Can I just congratulate everyone on these posts over the last few days, weeks. There has been some brilliant speculation and analysis of evidence, geography and the main players in this few weeks of our history. So much better than oh Richard was a tyrant he was always planning to take the throne right from when he was two years old and he killed the Duke of Somerset at the Battle of St Albans!

Hi Hilary,
Yes I had missed this about Rivers, but I feel Northampton must have been easy to access from all directions because it was considered so in the Middle Ages. This is why it had so much accommodation, why it had often been used to hold parliaments, and also why it ended up as the site of one of the WotR battles.
Roads as they are today can be very deceptive as they have been so messed around with in the last 200-250 years. For instance, on the maps you see of the Battle of Barnet the Great North Road is always assumed to be the main road referred to in the early accounts, but in fact the other fork where the monument now stands, which is ignored by modern historians as a series of local back lanes, was then the main road between Barnet and St Albans and a well used route into London. Round where I live now, people might scratch their heads at olden days travellers going through Lymm en route between Knutsford and Warrington, but that's because of the road straightening of the stagecoach era, which cut out High Legh and Lymm so that High Legh is no longer on the main road at all and two awkward detours are needed to include these places in the route. These are just areas I've lived and happpen to know well, but I think you can find the same problem anywhere. I know the modern A5 is the result of Telford's replanning of Watling Street.
There may be early travellers' maps which indicate favoured routes, or Leland may give clues. I think the vols of his Itineraries are prob all online now

I also think it is a mistake to assume they were all in a hurry. They weren't planning to reach London until the eve of the coronation procession and unseemly haste on the raid would have looked bad anyway. My feeling is that EV's minders would have wanted to show him off as much as possible at as many towns as possible en route, and even administer oaths of allegiance. I know there's nothing in the Coventry Leet Book, but there's very little in it from 1483-5 so what we have is clearly incomplete.

I've just checked JAH's itinerary of Eiv and it shows that, when Edward was returning to the capital from Ludlow (which I've found him doing twice) he would go through Birmingham, Coventry, Daventry and Stony Stratford. So this suggests the Midlands route was normal - perhaps better roads- and that EV's party would have been expected to branch off into Northampton from Daventry, but as Gordon Smith has already shown, could easily have bypassed the town altogether and made straight for Stiny Stratford.

I am now also 90% convinced that this was a rendezvous of people coming from four directions- this discussion has been really really useful.
Richard was coming from the north, as we know (the mayor of Nottingham was out by the road awaiting his arrival on the afternoon of the 26th). Edward V, with Sir Thomas Vaughan, was clearly coming in from the west. Mancini (I think it is) tells us that Richard Grey had ridden up from London, ie from the south, though he doesn't say why. And Rivers was probably in Norfolk, or possibly Kings Lynn, when EIv died, and my guess now is that he did not attempt to join the king in Ludlow, so he would have been approaching from the east, though he may have been waiting ready at Grafton some days in advance of the agreed date.

So we have three Woodville retinues, arriving from west, east and south, perhaps all well armed and of considerable size in order to make up the agreed 2,000? Puts things in a slightly different context, doesn't it?

All we have to do is fit Buckingham in.

Hi Hilary,
I'm actually amazed how well it all now fits together. I think one thing that has held historians back is reliance on Tudor sources because Crowland lacks detail and Mancini's geographical understanding is non-existent. But, geography aside, I believe Mancini's account is accurate, and Crowland also needs to be listened to. So what these tell us that the Tudor accounts don't is that a) lord Richard Grey had come up to stony Stratford from London, b) Rivers set out from Northampton with Richard and Buckingham in the morning and was arrested with Vaughan and Grey. They were then all brought back to Northampton and held there initially.
Once one also stops assuming that rivers was coming with the King from Ludlow, the Northampton rendezvous makes much more sense, and so do the arrests of Rivers, Vaughan and Grey as they are revealed as the leaders of the three contingents of Woodville troops.
Can anybody check Crowland and Mancini re Buckingham's arrival, please? If he was intending to travel alone and was starting at Brecon, then yes the Thames Valley route would make more sense. But if he was either starting at Maxstoke or had gone from Brecon to Ludlow to join the royal party, then he would be heading for Northampton.
Is it possible he had formed part of the King's escort, but when they bypassed Northampton and he sussed there was some sort of plot afoot took himself off to inform Richard? Maybe that is why Rivers felt he had to go back and try to calm suspicions?

PS. I don't think Crowland indicates that EV was to be placed in Richard's care at Northampton, just that Richard would be directing all policy decisions. And that is Crowland's assertion based on, presumably, nothing more than that would have been the proper course of action.
The person in actual charge of Edward's care was Sir Thomas Vaughan, and since he was arrested and later executed we can surely assume he was part of any plot and so -assuming there was a Woodville plot- he wouldn't have been coaching EV to submit to Richard's orders.

PS. I don't think Crowland indicates that EV was to be placed in Richard's care at Northampton, just that Richard would be directing all policy decisions. And that is Crowland's assertion based on, presumably, nothing more than that would have been the proper course of action.
The person in actual charge of Edward's care was Sir Thomas Vaughan, and since he was arrested and later executed we can surely assume he was part of any plot and so -assuming there was a Woodville plot- he wouldn't have been coaching EV to submit to Richard's orders.

Hi Hilary,

Interesting points.

1. Actually, Crowland and More don't attempt to relay what was said over supper, only that there was a lot of smiling and apparent good cheer. I think the clue may lie in Crowland's statement that Buck and Rivers sat at Richard's table. In other words, they were not dining in a private chamber, but just sharing high table in a larger hall where they could be seen, though not heard, by some members of their entourage.

2. I don't know why Stony Stratford rather than Grafton, but here are a couple of suggestions. First, if you're going to ambush someone and then make out. The someone was the aggressor, you really don't want to do it on your own ground - looks too suspicious. Second, the best ambush site may have necessitated taking Richard past, or around Grafton. Third, there was building work going on at Grafton, as the Dymmok papers show, so it may not have been in a fit state to receive visitors. Fourth, you don't want to park the young king in the middle of your armed ambush site in case he gets hurt, or worse.

3. I don't know who Richard had with him, except that the numbers weren't huge as he had to send north for troops later. The Metcalfe brothers may very well have been with him as Miles' elder brother Thomas later received a reward which was stated as being in part for encouraging Richard to accept the crown.

4. I can't check Northumberland's movements till I get home, but I've got a feeling Richard may have sent him north to get those troops so perhaps he had come to London. Will check next week if you remind.

Thanks Marie. That's what I too think about point 2. Re 1. It will be interesting for you to check the Latin to find out whether Buckingham did arrive before the meal or later.
Personally, like Doug I'm now inclining to the view that Buckingham originally saw this as an opportunity to get well in with the new king and may have joined him, not Richard, somewhere along the route which is very Maxstoke friendly. Then he presumably 'did a Stanley' when he saw the way things were going.
So my next big question, not just to you but to everyone, is why EW (primarily) and the Woodvilles were so afraid of Richard being Protector. There's no indication that he would have been hostile to them and taken away any of their lands or privileges. In fact by really bad strategy on their part they eventually forced him into doing this. He'd never been unkind to women - it was Edward who forced him to seize the lands of the Countess of Oxford. Every historian who writes about him says he'd behaved perfectly up to this period in his life. Moreover, unlike that of Humphrey of Gloucester, the Protectorate would be only short term and Richard had his own 'kingdom' to go back to in Yorkshire.
I can think of two things:
Firstly, he knew they had a hand in the death of Clarence and they knew he knew
Secondly, EW did know about the Precontract and had to act fast, very fast.
Anyone think of anything else? H
On Saturday, 3 March 2018, 18:18:36 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Interesting points.

1. Actually, Crowland and More don't attempt to relay what was said over supper, only that there was a lot of smiling and apparent good cheer. I think the clue may lie in Crowland's statement that Buck and Rivers sat at Richard's table. In other words, they were not dining in a private chamber, but just sharing high table in a larger hall where they could be seen, though not heard, by some members of their entourage.

2. I don't know why Stony Stratford rather than Grafton, but here are a couple of suggestions. First, if you're going to ambush someone and then make out. The someone was the aggressor, you really don't want to do it on your own ground - looks too suspicious. Second, the best ambush site may have necessitated taking Richard past, or around Grafton. Third, there was building work going on at Grafton, as the Dymmok papers show, so it may not have been in a fit state to receive visitors. Fourth, you don't want to park the young king in the middle of your armed ambush site in case he gets hurt, or worse.

3. I don't know who Richard had with him, except that the numbers weren't huge as he had to send north for troops later. The Metcalfe brothers may very well have been with him as Miles' elder brother Thomas later received a reward which was stated as being in part for encouraging Richard to accept the crown.

4. I can't check Northumberland's movements till I get home, but I've got a feeling Richard may have sent him north to get those troops so perhaps he had come to London. Will check next week if you remind.

While I have long thought that it was MB doing all the plotting I must admit that I am coming round to the idea that the Woodvilles were the plotters and MB supporting them in the hope that her beloved son would be allowed home. I think that EW probably did know about the pre-contract. The only other reason I can think of is that she did not want to be the mother of the King and not have any power.

I think the most likely factor inciting the Woodville's fear of Richard's protectorate is Clarence. If they (EW in particular) felt threatened by him and pushed for his execution, they had good reason to fear retribution. At the time, they didn't really care because they didn't anticipate E4 dying suddenly before E5 was old enough to govern by himself. However, after E4 died, they knew they would lose all their power, and they were desperate to hang on at all costs. I agree with Mary that EW would have found having no authority over E5 a real blow. AW and Grey would lose their positions, and Dorset the benefits of being a royal insider. Under most circumstances, Richard might have given at least EW and AW influential positions in relation to E5, but if they expected to be completely pushed out, then there must have been a reason why they were aware of Richard's dislike of them. Richard certainly wouldn't have been alone as they had made themselves unpopular as high handed upstarts, and if they were pushed out, they would find it difficult to find support.
I wish we knew more about the family dynamic of the Woodvilles. Some must have been more power hungry than others. My personal suspicion is that the hubris of the Woodville family may be rooted in the unusual status of the Jacquetta and Richard Woodville marriage, which enabled the family to trade to on her having been the Duchess of Bedford and her noble status by birth. They were still essentially lower gentry, but the parents may have given the children a sense that they were better than other people in that social group, and were entitled to more than the parents could actually provide. The Thomas Cook affair is a revealing insight into the character of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville. Arresting someone is one thing, but raiding their house and taking your pick of their belongings is something else. I couldn't imagine Cecily doing something so tacky. Greedy, grasping parents who rob a merchant raise greedy, grasping children who raid the treasury and plot a coup to hang on to power. When EW hit the jackpot and became Queen, she ruthlessly promoted the family to the point of encouraging rebellion. However, ambitious they were individually, they were forever in her debt.

If EW had been the most ambitious of the clan, then she passed that on to her sons AW. They were young when she married E4 and knew nothing outside royal circles, and probably never contemplated any other purpose. That is why I think the rebellion started with those three and AW joined in. None of them had significant military experience or experience of planning anything significant so they bungled the plans for a coup horribly. FWIW, I think E5 was sent to Stony Stratford firstly to send Richard and Buckingham on the desired route, and secondly to keep him away from any action, where he could be at risk. Therefore, the area Grafton would be the best place for the ambush.

I used to think that maybe the Woodvilles did know of the precontract, but after these discussions about routes and AW's pace am less convinced. However, J-AH has raised some good arguments suggesting that EW knew. If the Earl of Desmond and Duchess of Clarence were murders ordered by her, then the underlying reason must have been important. I don't think it is impossible that she knew, but not AW or even her sons. However, if she and maybe her son knew, that would have explained their desperation.
Nico




On Sunday, 4 March 2018, 11:31:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

While I have long thought that it was MB doing all the plotting I must admit that I am coming round to the idea that the Woodvilles were the plotters and MB supporting them in the hope that her beloved son would be allowed home. I think that EW probably did know about the pre-contract. The only other reason I can think of is that she did not want to be the mother of the King and not have any power.

While I have long thought that it was MB doing all the plotting I must admit that I am coming round to the idea that the Woodvilles were the plotters and MB supporting them in the hope that her beloved son would be allowed home. I think that EW probably did know about the pre-contract. The only other reason I can think of is that she did not want to be the mother of the King and not have any power.

Hi Doug,
I also feel that Rivers was probably not the author of the plan. My feeling is that he and R Grey were obeying orders from the Queen, and she in turn may have been influenced by the cocky but inexperienced Marquis Dorset.

I don't see the scattering of the Woodville troops in quite the same way. Perhaps we should see them as converging rather than scattering, with Richard caught in the middle? Even pitched battles at this period were fought by armies which were each split into three. Also, Richard probably had no more than 300 men, against their total of 2,000 (which means an average of close on 700 men in each unit). Perhaps the plot failed not because they were too spread out but because Buckingham's men (600, I have read, but don't know if that is reliable) had been calculated as part of the 2,000, so when he changed sides the balance of numbers in the Woodvilles' favour went down from 2,000:300 (6.67:1) to 1,400:900 (1.55:1). Add to that, if Buckingham knew of their plans, then they would also have lost the element of surprise.

While I have long thought that it was MB doing all the plotting I must admit that I am coming round to the idea that the Woodvilles were the plotters and MB supporting them in the hope that her beloved son would be allowed home. I think that EW probably did know about the pre-contract. The only other reason I can think of is that she did not want to be the mother of the King and not have any power.

I think the most likely factor inciting the Woodville's fear of Richard's protectorate is Clarence. If they (EW in particular) felt threatened by him and pushed for his execution, they had good reason to fear retribution. At the time, they didn't really care because they didn't anticipate E4 dying suddenly before E5 was old enough to govern by himself. However, after E4 died, they knew they would lose all their power, and they were desperate to hang on at all costs. I agree with Mary that EW would have found having no authority over E5 a real blow. AW and Grey would lose their positions, and Dorset the benefits of being a royal insider. Under most circumstances, Richard might have given at least EW and AW influential positions in relation to E5, but if they expected to be completely pushed out, then there must have been a reason why they were aware of Richard's dislike of them. Richard certainly wouldn't have been alone as they had made themselves unpopular as high handed upstarts, and if they were pushed out, they would find it difficult to find support.
I wish we knew more about the family dynamic of the Woodvilles. Some must have been more power hungry than others. My personal suspicion is that the hubris of the Woodville family may be rooted in the unusual status of the Jacquetta and Richard Woodville marriage, which enabled the family to trade to on her having been the Duchess of Bedford and her noble status by birth. They were still essentially lower gentry, but the parents may have given the children a sense that they were better than other people in that social group, and were entitled to more than the parents could actually provide. The Thomas Cook affair is a revealing insight into the character of Richard and Jacquetta Woodville. Arresting someone is one thing, but raiding their house and taking your pick of their belongings is something else. I couldn't imagine Cecily doing something so tacky. Greedy, grasping parents who rob a merchant raise greedy, grasping children who raid the treasury and plot a coup to hang on to power. When EW hit the jackpot and became Queen, she ruthlessly promoted the family to the point of encouraging rebellion. However, ambitious they were individually, they were forever in her debt.

If EW had been the most ambitious of the clan, then she passed that on to her sons AW. They were young when she married E4 and knew nothing outside royal circles, and probably never contemplated any other purpose. That is why I think the rebellion started with those three and AW joined in. None of them had significant military experience or experience of planning anything significant so they bungled the plans for a coup horribly. FWIW, I think E5 was sent to Stony Stratford firstly to send Richard and Buckingham on the desired route, and secondly to keep him away from any action, where he could be at risk. Therefore, the area Grafton would be the best place for the ambush.

I used to think that maybe the Woodvilles did know of the precontract, but after these discussions about routes and AW's pace am less convinced. However, J-AH has raised some good arguments suggesting that EW knew. If the Earl of Desmond and Duchess of Clarence were murders ordered by her, then the underlying reason must have been important. I don't think it is impossible that she knew, but not AW or even her sons. However, if she and maybe her son knew, that would have explained their desperation.
Nico




On Sunday, 4 March 2018, 11:31:59 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

While I have long thought that it was MB doing all the plotting I must admit that I am coming round to the idea that the Woodvilles were the plotters and MB supporting them in the hope that her beloved son would be allowed home. I think that EW probably did know about the pre-contract. The only other reason I can think of is that she did not want to be the mother of the King and not have any power.

One other little point. I wonder how much difficulty AW had in raising troops in Northants? You see the High Sheriff from March 1483 was Roger Wake of Blisworth and Towcester, who went on to fight for Richard at Bosworth. He was married to Catesby's daughter (Catesby too was a former High Sheriff). If he'd spotted something going on is this a way in which Richard also could have been warned?
I wonder what all these troops did when their leaders were arrested - carry on to London with Richard or dissipate fast? H
On Sunday, 4 March 2018, 17:38:55 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I also feel that Rivers was probably not the author of the plan. My feeling is that he and R Grey were obeying orders from the Queen, and she in turn may have been influenced by the cocky but inexperienced Marquis Dorset.

I don't see the scattering of the Woodville troops in quite the same way. Perhaps we should see them as converging rather than scattering, with Richard caught in the middle? Even pitched battles at this period were fought by armies which were each split into three. Also, Richard probably had no more than 300 men, against their total of 2,000 (which means an average of close on 700 men in each unit). Perhaps the plot failed not because they were too spread out but because Buckingham's men (600, I have read, but don't know if that is reliable) had been calculated as part of the 2,000, so when he changed sides the balance of numbers in the Woodvilles' favour went down from 2,000:300 (6.67:1) to 1,400:900 (1.55:1). Add to that, if Buckingham knew of their plans, then they would also have lost the element of surprise.

Marie,
If it was EW who set things in motion, then that would better explain her
rushing into sanctuary in fear of her life - she'd plotted against the life
of of the Constable of England and feared the consequences. A much better
explanation than the one we've been too often given; in my opinion anyway.
One of the reasons I've favored the idea Rivers' men were "scattered" about
the area was logistics. While dialing through the television channels a week
or so ago, I came across a bit of movie depicting a large group of cavalry
riding along. They were riding six abreast and the "tailback" was immense! I
only managed to count up to 50 men before the scene changed, but that was
what led me to think the various groups of men would likely have had to been
"scattered," if only to provide food for their horses. Thinking it over, of
course, the exact same results would occur if the groups of men were, in
order not to overwhelm any one village, or even Northampton itself - it
wasn't the town it'd been a hundred years earlier, told to stop before near,
but not at, Northampton.
Your point about whether Buckingham's men might have been included in that
"2000" never occurred to me! (Hangs head). If Buckingham had accompanied
Edward's party, regardless of whether it was from Brecon or somewhere else
along the route, it would only be natural to assume his men were part of the
King's escort. Subtract Buckingham's men from the total available to Rivers,
add them to Richard's and then have Richard avoid the men placed to carry
out that ambush and suddenly the ease of Rivers' arrest doesn't seem so
strange anymore.
In another thread, Hilary cited two different quotations from the Croyland
Chronicle describing Buckingham's arrival at Northampton; with one implying
he arrived in time for Richard's meeting with Rivers & Co., and a second
having Buckingham show up just before everyone went off to bed. I tried to
"square the circle" by having the first citation originating from one person
and the second citation from a second person. It's possible, of course, that
both citations were from the same person, but represented what that person
saw at two different times on the same day. It would mean, I guess, that
this person, after viewing Richard and Rivers meeting, at which Buckingham
was also present, had to go and do something and, when he returned, it was
just in time to see Buckingham return from wherever he'd been.
A rather lengthy way of say: Perhaps that second citation represents
Buckingham returning with some information about what was up?
Doug

Marie wrote:
"Hi Doug,
I also feel that Rivers was probably not the author of the plan. My feeling
is that he and R Grey were obeying orders from the Queen, and she in turn
may have been influenced by the cocky but inexperienced Marquis Dorset.
I don't see the scattering of the Woodville troops in quite the same way.
Perhaps we should see them as converging rather than scattering, with
Richard caught in the middle? Even pitched battles at this period were
fought by armies which were each split into three. Also, Richard probably
had no more than 300 men, against their total of 2,000 (which means an
average of close on 700 men in each unit). Perhaps the plot failed not
because they were too spread out but because Buckingham's men (600, I have
read, but don't know if that is reliable) had been calculated as part of the
2,000, so when he changed sides the balance of numbers in the Woodvilles'
favour went down from 2,000:300 (6.67:1) to 1,400:900 (1.55:1). Add to that,
if Buckingham knew of their plans, then they would also have lost the
element of surprise."

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

Your things twice are much better than most of the drivel I receive!

From: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 4:15 AM
To: ; mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Richard's letters to the Council and Rivers

Sorry my stuff came through twice; there seems to have been a big problem with Yahoo this week. H

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018, 02:00:16 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

One other little point. I wonder how much difficulty AW had in raising troops in Northants? You see the High Sheriff from March 1483 was Roger Wake of Blisworth and Towcester, who went on to fight for Richard at Bosworth. He was married to Catesby's daughter (Catesby too was a former High Sheriff). If he'd spotted something going on is this a way in which Richard also could have been warned?

I wonder what all these troops did when their leaders were arrested - carry on to London with Richard or dissipate fast? H

On Sunday, 4 March 2018, 17:38:55 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
I also feel that Rivers was probably not the author of the plan. My feeling is that he and R Grey were obeying orders from the Queen, and she in turn may have been influenced by the cocky but inexperienced Marquis Dorset.

I don't see the scattering of the Woodville troops in quite the same way. Perhaps we should see them as converging rather than scattering, with Richard caught in the middle? Even pitched battles at this period were fought by armies which were each split into three. Also, Richard probably had no more than 300 men, against their total of 2,000 (which means an average of close on 700 men in each unit). Perhaps the plot failed not because they were too spread out but because Buckingham's men (600, I have read, but don't know if that is reliable) had been calculated as part of the 2,000, so when he changed sides the balance of numbers in the Woodvilles' favour went down from 2,000:300 (6.67:1) to 1,400:900 (1.55:1). Add to that, if Buckingham knew of their plans, then they would also have lost the element of surprise.

Nance wrote:

"Does anyone know if she [EW] was actually alone in the room with Edward when he was dying?

Doug wrote;

"While I wouldn't be surprised that the Woodvilles may not have discouraged Edward from signing George's death-warrant, may even have quietly urged Edward to do so, I don't think that alone would explain their later actions. And regardless of whatever the Woodvilles may have urged Edward to do, the ultimate responsibility for George's execution rested solely with Edward IV. I also tend to think that Richard fully realized that. There are references, I know, to Richard promising death and destruction to those who encompassed his brother's death but, once again, are those statements actually what Richard said, or are they what some historian believed Richard said?"

Marie:

I don't think Clarence's execution was either inevitable or normal. Although I personally do believe Clarence had tried plotting again after 1471 (i.e. with Archbishop Neville and the Earl of Oxford), Edward had managed to control him very well, and he could easily have kept him in comfortable accommodation in the Tower indefinitely if he didn't think he could continue to manage him on the outside. Fratricide was a big step.

I'm not at all certain that Richard would have accepted that all the blame for the execution lay with Edward, simply because it was such a desperate step to take.

In fact, I can think offhand of a couple of contemporary sources for the belief that the Queen had put King Edward under pressure, and that Richard believed this:

1) Mancini, who related Clarence's bitter denunciation of the queen's obscure family, and that, after the Readeption of Henry VI she "concluded that her offspring by the king would never come to the throne unless Clarence were removed; and of this she easily persuaded the king. . . . Accordingly, whether the charge was fabricated, or a real plot revealed, the duke of Clarence was accused of conspiring the king's death by means of spells and magicians. When the charge had been considered before a court, he was condemned and put to death. . . At that time Richard duke of Gloucester was so overcome with grief for his brother, that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say that he would one day avenge his brother's death." (p. 63)

2) The wording of the petition to Richard to take the throne (later enrolled as Titulus Regius), which must have been drafted in accordance with what were believed to have been Richard's feelings, also blamed the Woodville marriage for all the ills and destruction that had happened since:

". . . after the ungracious pretensed Marriage, as all England hath cause soo to say, made betwixt the said King Edward, and Elizabeth, sometyme Wife to Sir John Grey Knight, late nameing herself and many years heretofore Quene of Englond, the ordre of all poletique Rule was perverted, the Lawes of God and of Gods Church, and also the Lawes of Nature and of Englond. . . . And besides this, what Discords, inwarde Battailles, effusion of Christian Mens Blode, and namely, by the destruction of the Blode of this Londe, was had and comitted within the same, it is evident and notarie thourough all this Reame, unto the great sorowe and hevynesse of all true Englishmen".

3) Richard's instructions to the envoy he sent the Earl of Desmond include:

"Also he shall show that, albeit the father of the said earl (the King then being of young age) was extortiously slain and murdered by colour of the laws within Ireland by certain persons then having the governance and rule there, against all manhood, reason and good conscience, yet (notwithstanding that, the semblable chance was and happened sithen [since] within this his realm of England, as well of his brother the Duke of Clarence as other his nigh kinsmen and great friends) the King's Grace always continueth and hath inward compassion of the death of his said father and is content that his said cousin, now earl, by all ordinate means and due course of the laws, when it shall lust him at any time hereafter to sue or attempt for the punishment thereof."

Hilary said to Mary:

I do think you notice Mary is at this point EW doesn't seem to be using any networking skills. By the October rebellions she's learned to do that. I wonder who taught her? We know MB's networking skills stayed with her all her life.

Marie butts in:

Very good point. She certainly doesn't seem to have been able to gather support in London. My guess is that her problem was she'd never had to network before because she could just issue commands; the couple of surviving letters of hers are really quite imperious. EW's lack of a support network also seems to be rather marked in Henry VII's reign.

Nance wrote:

"Does anyone know if she [EW] was actually alone in the room with Edward when he was dying?

Doug wrote;

"While I wouldn't be surprised that the Woodvilles may not have discouraged Edward from signing George's death-warrant, may even have quietly urged Edward to do so, I don't think that alone would explain their later actions. And regardless of whatever the Woodvilles may have urged Edward to do, the ultimate responsibility for George's execution rested solely with Edward IV. I also tend to think that Richard fully realized that. There are references, I know, to Richard promising death and destruction to those who encompassed his brother's death but, once again, are those statements actually what Richard said, or are they what some historian believed Richard said?"

Marie:

I don't think Clarence's execution was either inevitable or normal. Although I personally do believe Clarence had tried plotting again after 1471 (i.e. with Archbishop Neville and the Earl of Oxford), Edward had managed to control him very well, and he could easily have kept him in comfortable accommodation in the Tower indefinitely if he didn't think he could continue to manage him on the outside. Fratricide was a big step.

I'm not at all certain that Richard would have accepted that all the blame for the execution lay with Edward, simply because it was such a desperate step to take.

In fact, I can think offhand of a couple of contemporary sources for the belief that the Queen had put King Edward under pressure, and that Richard believed this:

1) Mancini, who related Clarence's bitter denunciation of the queen's obscure family, and that, after the Readeption of Henry VI she "concluded that her offspring by the king would never come to the throne unless Clarence were removed; and of this she easily persuaded the king. . . . Accordingly, whether the charge was fabricated, or a real plot revealed, the duke of Clarence was accused of conspiring the king's death by means of spells and magicians. When the charge had been considered before a court, he was condemned and put to death. . . At that time Richard duke of Gloucester was so overcome with grief for his brother, that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say that he would one day avenge his brother's death." (p. 63)

2) The wording of the petition to Richard to take the throne (later enrolled as Titulus Regius), which must have been drafted in accordance with what were believed to have been Richard's feelings, also blamed the Woodville marriage for all the ills and destruction that had happened since:

". . . after the ungracious pretensed Marriage, as all England hath cause soo to say, made betwixt the said King Edward, and Elizabeth, sometyme Wife to Sir John Grey Knight, late nameing herself and many years heretofore Quene of Englond, the ordre of all poletique Rule was perverted, the Lawes of God and of Gods Church, and also the Lawes of Nature and of Englond. . . . And besides this, what Discords, inwarde Battailles, effusion of Christian Mens Blode, and namely, by the destruction of the Blode of this Londe, was had and comitted within the same, it is evident and notarie thourough all this Reame, unto the great sorowe and hevynesse of all true Englishmen".

3) Richard's instructions to the envoy he sent the Earl of Desmond include:

"Also he shall show that, albeit the father of the said earl (the King then being of young age) was extortiously slain and murdered by colour of the laws within Ireland by certain persons then having the governance and rule there, against all manhood, reason and good conscience, yet (notwithstanding that, the semblable chance was and happened sithen [since] within this his realm of England, as well of his brother the Duke of Clarence as other his nigh kinsmen and great friends) the King's Grace always continueth and hath inward compassion of the death of his said father and is content that his said cousin, now earl, by all ordinate means and due course of the laws, when it shall lust him at any time hereafter to sue or attempt for the punishment thereof."

Hilary wrote:
One other little point. I wonder how much difficulty AW had in raising troops in Northants? You see the High Sheriff from March 1483 was Roger Wake of Blisworth and Towcester, who went on to fight for Richard at Bosworth. He was married to Catesby's daughter (Catesby too was a former High Sheriff). If he'd spotted something going on is this a way in which Richard also could have been warned?


Marie:
Roger Wake was not appointed county sheriff until 6 November 1483 (appointments were always in early November). Robert Wittlebury had been appointed sheriff on 5 November 1482 and reappointed (following Edward IV's death) on 21 April 1483. This is all from the Calendar of Fine Rolls.

-----

Hilary wrote:
I wonder what all these troops did when their leaders were arrested - carry on to London with Richard or dissipate fast?

Marie:
According to Crowland, Richard "had it publicly proclaimed that anyone of the king's household should withdraw from the place at once and that they should not come near any places where the king might go, on pain of death."

Carol,
It may just be me, but what I get from that excerpt about limiting troops
is:
1) Both sides were requested to not bring more than 2000 men with Hastings
agreeing to that number while he acted as the temporary head of the
"anti-Woodville" faction in London and,
2) Seemingly, Buckingham's and Richard's escorts were included in the total
allotted to that faction. FWIW, my take on the excerpt isn't that those two
were necessarily expected to meet up, but were expected to act together once
they'd arrived in London.
Doug

Carol wrote:
"Hilary wrote:
"Hi Marie, just looked at Crowland.
" 'On reaching Northampton (Richard that is) where the Duke of Buckingham
joined him, there came thither to pay their respects to him Anthony earl of
Rivers, the king's uncle, and Richard Grey, a most noble knight and uterine
brother to the king, together with several others who had been sent by the
king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and
discretion of his uncle the duke of Gloucester'
"But then it loses continuity. Because it says they were all happy having
supper and then:-
"'At last Henry Duke of Buckingham also arrived there, and, as it was now
late, they all retired to their lodgings'"

Carol responds:
And then there's this earlier bit in Croyland with reference to the limiting
of EV's troops (Rivers isn't mentioned):
"The same number [2,000] was also approved for the before-named lord
[Hastings]; as it would appear, he felt fully assured that the dukes of
Gloucester and Buckingham, in whom he placed the greatest confidence, would
not bring a smaller number with them."
I'm not sure why Hastings would have needed troops, unless it was to defend
himself against Rivers and co., but the excerpt (if correct) indicates that
Buckingham intended and was expected to accompany Richard all along. Of
course, our continuator/compiler (or his source) may be writing from
hindsight.
By the way, Pronay's translation is word-for-word identical to the older
translation by H. T. Riley, (The entire chronicle in this older translation,
not just the parts relating to Richard, is available online at Google Books
as "Ingulph's Chronicle of the Abbey of Croyland: with the Continuations by
Peter of Blois and Anonymous Writers." It can be downloaded free as an
ebook.
Pronay's translation (also the entire chronicle) is available online at the
American branch of the RIII Society:
http://www.r3.org/on-line-library-text-essays/crowland-chronicle
I can't recall the translators of the newest edition, but I'm pretty sure
it's not online."

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

Doug wrote:

"It's starting to look as if I'm going to have reassess my position about the Woodville involvement in Clarence's death!
I do admit I've always wondered why Edward didn't just confine George; either under guard in the Tower or under house arrest in some country-house.
However, it is true that George had betrayed Edward in 1470 and, as far as I know, was never punished for it. Is it possible Edward never forgot and never forgave George, regardless of anything that had happened since? With the result that it didn't take much, if any, urging by anyone for Edward to decide to finally settle the score? On the whole, Edward seems to have had a good press while he was alive. I can easily imagine people trying to look for someone else to blame for George's execution.
I just don't know..."

Marie replies:

There is a very early source (but I would need to check exactly what it is) that claims Edward was always bemoaning the fact that no one stopped him killing his brother. I think he may indeed have regretted it badly. There could be other reasons, but I was struck, when I looked into the doings of the Order of the Garter, that Edward failed miserably in appointing a replacement to Clarence's stall, and only ever attempted to give it to foreign princes who would never actually sit in it. Edward also wriggled out of nearly every Garter feast after that. I was getting an impression of that scene in Macbeth where Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost sitting in the empty chair at the feast. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

To Dug:

P.S. Also meant to say that there are several separate considerations:

1) Did the Queen egg Edward on to have Clarence executed?

2) Did Richard believe she had done so? (He could have believed it even if it weren't true, or not believed it even if it were.)

3) Did Richard plan to be avenged on the Woodvilles for Clarence's death?

4) Did the Queen believe Richard meant to destroy her because of Clarence?

Mancini's report would seem to indicate that a belief that the Queen had brought about Clarence's death was current in London in the spring of 1483, although there is the possibility that it sprang up with hindsight, after Edward V had been deposed. Surely rumours of that sort would have reached the Queen's ears?

Nance wrote:
"It's been a long time since my "nose buried in books" days, and I can't recall where I saw support of Kendall's claim that Hastings was increasingly almost hysterical about developing events, so if anyone has the answer, I'd appreciate feedback." Carol responds:

Almost certainly, he's taking Mancini's version of Hastings's letters to Richard at face value. Any such letters, assuming that Hastings did write them, have long since disappeared, and Mancini could never have seen them (even if he could read English), nor could any of his informants. For example, on p. 193 of my edition of Kendall, he quotes Mancini's version of the first letter ("The King has left all to your possession--goods, heir, realm. Secure the person of our sovereign Lord Edward the fifth and get you to London") as if it were verbatim from the actual letter (and as if Hastings could give orders to Richard!). Kendall's comment that Hastings's letters were increasingly urgent is based on the same set of (imagined) letters.

Carol

What's also interesting re Clarence (and I hadn't read your points when I replied to Doug, Marie) is that in the years/months after Tewkesbury Edward used George a lot on Commissions of Array. OK some of the time he was with Richard, but I wouldn't have thought he'd have used him at all if he wanted to sideline him. Quite risky. It sounds more as though he was coming to trust him. In fact on wonders how much time Richard or George were able to spend at home. They must have been very saddle sore. H
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018, 20:59:32 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Doug wrote;

"While I wouldn't be surprised that the Woodvilles may not have discouraged Edward from signing George's death-warrant, may even have quietly urged Edward to do so, I don't think that alone would explain their later actions. And regardless of whatever the Woodvilles may have urged Edward to do, the ultimate responsibility for George's execution rested solely with Edward IV. I also tend to think that Richard fully realized that. There are references, I know, to Richard promising death and destruction to those who encompassed his brother's death but, once again, are those statements actually what Richard said, or are they what some historian believed Richard said?"

Marie:

I don't think Clarence's execution was either inevitable or normal. Although I personally do believe Clarence had tried plotting again after 1471 (i.e. with Archbishop Neville and the Earl of Oxford), Edward had managed to control him very well, and he could easily have kept him in comfortable accommodation in the Tower indefinitely if he didn't think he could continue to manage him on the outside. Fratricide was a big step.

I'm not at all certain that Richard would have accepted that all the blame for the execution lay with Edward, simply because it was such a desperate step to take.

In fact, I can think offhand of a couple of contemporary sources for the belief that the Queen had put King Edward under pressure, and that Richard believed this:

1) Mancini, who related Clarence's bitter denunciation of the queen's obscure family, and that, after the Readeption of Henry VI she "concluded that her offspring by the king would never come to the throne unless Clarence were removed; and of this she easily persuaded the king. . . . Accordingly, whether the charge was fabricated, or a real plot revealed, the duke of Clarence was accused of conspiring the king's death by means of spells and magicians. When the charge had been considered before a court, he was condemned and put to death. . . At that time Richard duke of Gloucester was so overcome with grief for his brother, that he could not dissimulate so well, but that he was overheard to say that he would one day avenge his brother's death." (p. 63)

2) The wording of the petition to Richard to take the throne (later enrolled as Titulus Regius), which must have been drafted in accordance with what were believed to have been Richard's feelings, also blamed the Woodville marriage for all the ills and destruction that had happened since:

". . . after the ungracious pretensed Marriage, as all England hath cause soo to say, made betwixt the said King Edward, and Elizabeth, sometyme Wife to Sir John Grey Knight, late nameing herself and many years heretofore Quene of Englond, the ordre of all poletique Rule was perverted, the Lawes of God and of Gods Church, and also the Lawes of Nature and of Englond. . . . And besides this, what Discords, inwarde Battailles, effusion of Christian Mens Blode, and namely, by the destruction of the Blode of this Londe, was had and comitted within the same, it is evident and notarie thourough all this Reame, unto the great sorowe and hevynesse of all true Englishmen".

3) Richard's instructions to the envoy he sent the Earl of Desmond include:

"Also he shall show that, albeit the father of the said earl (the King then being of young age) was extortiously slain and murdered by colour of the laws within Ireland by certain persons then having the governance and rule there, against all manhood, reason and good conscience, yet (notwithstanding that, the semblable chance was and happened sithen [since] within this his realm of England, as well of his brother the Duke of Clarence as other his nigh kinsmen and great friends) the King's Grace always continueth and hath inward compassion of the death of his said father and is content that his said cousin, now earl, by all ordinate means and due course of the laws, when it shall lust him at any time hereafter to sue or attempt for the punishment thereof."

Hilary,
I just wanted to say Thank you, for this post (especially that second paragraph)!
I really do think almost everything about l'affaire Northampton, can be put down to the Woodvilles near-total reliance on Edward IV to maintain their new status and their fear of losing the prop the king represented. And, as you and others have pointed out, while status was very important, it wasn't something one could easily attain; at least not without the backing of someone who already held it  such as the king. Whether that king was Edward IV or Edward V, wouldn't have mattered.
I've gotten to the point where, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I view the whinging about all those who lost their lands as simply an attempt to justify committing treason; not once, but twice  first in October 1483 and then again in the summer of 1485.
Maybe it's just me?
Doug
Hilary wrote:
I tend towards your view too, Nico. I think EW would have made Edward 'do something' about the Pre Contract had she known for sure. But she just might have picked up rumours.
What you begin to realise is that, up until this point, the Woodvilles have been so reliant on their ties to Edward that they haven't bothered to cultivate any of the more powerful magnates who could have helped them. It's one thing to be a member of the High Sheriff gentry 'set' but quite another to get close to the Howards, the Ferrers and the Percies and indeed the high up members of the Church. And where they had tried via EW's sisters, some like John le Strange and Anthony Grey of Ruthin were already dead.
On the other hand, I think their fear of Richard taking them out completely was unfounded - unless of course he knew they'd had a hand in Clarence's death. I can't see him importing all his Yorkshire affinity - those guys were probably hap py enough where they were. It was only after the October rebellions that they forced him into this to secure the realm. Yet in the history books Richard always gets the blame for this - even from Horrox.

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

Paul wrote: "Jumping in on Marie's comment about Richard not accepting Edward taking all the blame for Clarence's demise, I have to disagree. After all Richard begging Edward to forgive him again is on record, as is Edwards intransigence, and his replacing Richard at the trial with Buckingham while ensuring Richard was elsewhere. In his mind he may well have blamed the Woodvilles for influencing too him too much! But the fact that Edward had allowed their influence to grow so large in everything could only be down to Edward. I also think using George on Commissions Of Array may well have simply been Edward testing out George's New found loyalty. But through it all George had always found it hard to just be the brother of the king and the heir to the throne, and once that was taken away from him he had no longer any real purpose in life except to cause trouble and attempt to get his position back. After his execution Richard spent as little time at court as he could, a court at which the queen's family were everywhere."

Marie replies: Well, I don't know if you're aware that our source for Richard having pleaded for George's life is actually More?

You talk about Edward's intransigence, but after sentence had been passed on Clarence (7 February) there was a long lull. It was normal for sentence to be carried out within a couple of days, but Edward prevaricated. This is Crowland "Afterward the execution was delayed for a long time, until the Speaker of the Commons came with his fellows into the upper chamber and made a fresh request for the thing demanded to be done. . . ." The Speaker was William Alyngton, who was Chancellor to the Prince of Wales and possibly, therefore, close to the Queen's family although I haven't looked into it. Thus the execution was finally carried out, privately and by an unannounced method, on 18 February, a full 11 days after sentence was passed.

Even Hicks has this to say in his biography of Clarence: "This is the second reason for doubting the justice of Clarence's trial. If Edward approached it so reluctantly, it suggests that he undertook it at the instigation of others. Yet the proceedings in parliament indicate considerable preparation on the part of the crown.

You are of course correct in noting that the ultimate responsibility was Edward's, but we are talking about how Richard viewed things, or more correctly still, how the Queen may have believed Richard viewed things; for a queen to intercede to the detriment of an individual was regarded as completely out of order, unnatural almost - the unwritten constitutional role of queens was to be an intercessor on behalf of those in trouble with the king, to balance the effect of the King's hot male temper - the same role that the BVM played in Heaven.

Also, just as Richard, in opposing Clarence's execution, was forgiving him much wrongdoing, even personal wrongdoing against himself, because he was his brother, so he would have been inclined to make excuses for Edward because Edward was also his brother, indeed the only brother he then had left.

I do think there is sufficient contemporary documentary evidence (most tellingly, perhaps, the Desmond letter) to indicate that Richard did blame the Woodvilles. Whether that means he would have set out to destroy them is another question entirely. I believe he would have gone on trying to work with them, for the sake of peace and stability, so long as they did the same towards him. But I think he would have feared that he was next on the Woodville list for the chop, and the mutual fear would have made for a very volatile situation.

P. S.

Meant to add, Paul, re your observation of Edward "replacing Richard at the trial with Buckingham while ensuring Richard was elsewhere"

First, of course, Richard wasn't elsewhere - he would have been sitting in Parliament with everyone else. Second, when I started to look into the job of the Chief Steward I discovered that Kendall was wrong in saying that this was an office held by Richard. In fact, no one had held that office for about 100 years. What was done is that, when a peer was to be condemned, a Chief Steward was appointed for the occasion and then the office lapsed again.

P. S.

Meant to add, Paul, re your observation of Edward "replacing Richard at the trial with Buckingham while ensuring Richard was elsewhere"

First, of course, Richard wasn't elsewhere - he would have been sitting in Parliament with everyone else. Second, when I started to look into the job of the Chief Steward I discovered that Kendall was wrong in saying that this was an office held by Richard. In fact, no one had held that office for about 100 years. What was done is that, when a peer was to be condemned, a Chief Steward was appointed for the occasion and then the office lapsed again.

No Milton Keynes isn't settling in Doug and it's the home of that most dreaded creature, the Milton Keynes 'boy racer' who treats all its sterile roads like Brands Hatch - so sorry if anyone on here lives at Milton Keynes, there are some leafy bits!
Considering you've never driven those roads I reckon you and your atlas have got the geography spot on in ambush terms. That's how I now see it too. Richard had managed to divide and conquer, and as I think you said earlier I doubt Rivers' heart was much in it. Perhaps Buckingham picked something of that up? H
On Friday, 9 March 2018, 00:03:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Marie,

Edward's actions certainly have the flavor of a guilty conscience, don't they? I must admit, I don't quite understand that bit about no one stopping him? Perhaps it's a reference to the urgings of Parliament, as well as whatever his wife may have said behind the scenes, and his inability (or refusal) to go against the pressure being put on him. Then again, maybe it's a reference to his giving in to his feelings about George's previous actions when pressured to have George's sentence carried out? I still wonder why there seems to have been no suggestion of just keeping George in custody; although if pressure was brought to bear on Edward to carry out the execution, perhaps that's the reason for the pressure  Edward did indeed intend to keep George locked up.

Doug

Marie wrote:

There is a very early source (but I would need to check exactly what it is) that claims Edward was always bemoaning the fact that no one stopped him killing his brother. I think he may indeed have regretted it badly. There could be other reasons, but I was struck, when I looked into the doings of the Order of the Garter, that Edward failed miserably in appointing a replacement to Clarence's stall, and only ever attempted to give it to foreign princes who would never actually sit in it. Edward also wriggled out of nearly every Garter feast after that. I was getting an impression of that scene in Macbeth where Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost sitting in the empty chair at the feast. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

I would like to congratulate everyone for their contributions to this debate. This brainstorming of evidence is just what is needed to get some sort of picture of what may have happened 1483 -1485. We may never know exactly what happened because, while the Chroniclers wrote down what was told to them, we can't know what was said in private conversations. The fact that Marie and Hilary have access to primary sources is invaluable and Marie's knowledge of Latin has cleared up so many points that we were not aware of before. Hilary's knowledge of who was doing what, where and who they were married to is another asset. So everyone keep on speculating so that we can find new evidence. Incidentally Hilary I think your point about people rebelling in other reigns is spot on. Some nineteenth century historians have a lot to answer for.
Mary

To Dug:

P.S. Also meant to say that there are several separate considerations:

1) Did the Queen egg Edward on to have Clarence executed?

2) Did Richard believe she had done so? (He could have believed it even if it weren't true, or not believed it even if it were.)

3) Did Richard plan to be avenged on the Woodvilles for Clarence's death?

4) Did the Queen believe Richard meant to destroy her because of Clarence?

Mancini's report would seem to indicate that a belief that the Queen had brought about Clarence's death was current in London in the spring of 1483, although there is the possibility that it sprang up with hindsight, after Edward V had been deposed. Surely rumours of that sort would have reached the Queen's ears?

Doug wrote: In an earlier post from Marie, she mentioned that EW seemed to have a demanding personality (Marie, I hope I paraphrased it properly?). If true, then it may have been that personality trait that led to her actions rather than any knowledge of the Pre-Contract. And such a personality would have fairly free play if one was the Queen. OTOH, relegated to the mostly ceremonial position of Queen Mother/Dowager Queen, while she might make he accustomed demands, their being met would no longer be so certain. As for the poisinings, I'm very much up in the air. The only reason to poison Eleanor would have been because EW knew of the Pre-Contract and EW's actions belie that idea. I toyed with the idea that EW might have poisoned Eleanor to remove one of Edward's previous conquests, but if so, then why not go after his more recent ones? If, and I highly stress that if, Norfolk was poisoned, it again leads to her knowing of the Pre-Contract. Frankly, I've never understood any rationale for EW to poison George's wife, Isabel. If EW was so worried about George or his son Edward replacing her children in the line of succession, they should have been the targets, not Isabel. I don't doubt that there likely was gossip about Edward's affairs before he announced EW was his wife, but I do doubt there was any actual knowledge. What the gossip did was make the acceptance of the Pre-Contract when it was announced just that much easier.
Perhaps it was a mixture?
While Edward IV was alive, EW could serve as their conduit to the king. The same could be done with Edward V, but only if the Woodvilles remained close around him in important positions. As Hilary (and Marie?) noted, the Woodvilles really hadn't built up an affinity. A couple of the marriages had lost much of their importance through the deaths of the men EW's daughters (and sisters?) had been married to. From his actions, marrying Catherine Woodville certainly hadn't brought Buckingham into their circle. As for the two boys, Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray in 1478 resulted in the disinheriting of the true heirs when Anne died in 1481; so I doubt that added to any support the Woodvilles could count on! IMO, Richard's marriage to Anne Mowbray had a two-fold purpose; to ally the Woodvilles with Anne's relatives by marriage and to provide a royal income for Richard without raiding the Exchequer (that was their job!).
To me, what that all boils down to is that the Woodvilles had tied their chariot solely to the person of the king and without that personal, direct connection,
the Woodvilles, especially EW, Rivers and Dorset, could easily have felt they would lose everything. They apparently weren't particularly liked, were resented as ill-bred parvenues and hadn't bothered to build up an affinity (as to do so, seemingly, would have interfered with their self-aggrandizement). A case of Woodvilles against the World?
Lacking almost completely any support from anyone not named Woodville or Grey, likely knowing of the rumors that were going around about how EW had urged (more likely the rumors said demanded), George's execution, and all the people, high and low they'd run rough-shod over  only to be placed completely in the hands of all those they'd offended in so many ways? Where they'd have to rely on the self-control and Christian forbearance of those they'd so offended? There's no might about it, if it was me, I'd be worried to death! If the Woodvilles lost control of Edward V, the best any of them could hope for would be a quiet retirement, possibly supplemented by a grant from the Privy Purse. Any governmental position they'd held could have been given to any of a hundred others and been done better. What skills had Rivers demonstrated? Dorset? Grey? Other than the skill of being closely related to someone rich and/or powerful, that is? They, who'd been at the very top, would sink back to where their actual abilities fitted them; somewhere in the country, trying to get the local gentry to take note of them.
I really do think it was the above, not any imprisonment, that EW and Rivers & Co. so desperately feared. (Well, that's what I think today, anyway)

Hi Doug,
I will try
I think the personality traits of EW and all the Woodvilles were an important factor which have been underexplored and even whitewashed by most writers. I would be interesting in reading those letters that Marie mentions where she comes across as imperious. Which ones are they? On the balance of what we know, the evidence points to the Woodvilles as arrogant upstarts being the correct one, and that arrogance played a big part in the events of 1483. I agree with you, it was that rather than the precontract that motivated them, and it is most unlikely that any of them knew were aware of it. From hogging high profile marriages to pushing for Clarence's execution to raiding the treasury, their behaviour was over reaching and excessive. I think it was Nance who mentioned the churching ceremony that sounds more like a coronation banquet. Baldwin and some other writers suggest it was just tradition, but there isn't any record of what royal churching ceremonies were normally like, so I'm not convinced. I'm no expert on churching ceremonies, but I get the impression that they, like christenings were lower key events. If even a churching ceremony was so ostentatious, then we can assume that EW was generally treated with the sort of deference that leads to narcissistic self delusion. By 1483, she would have found it difficult to contemplate life without it. Since the fortunes of the other Woodvilles were dependent on her, and she depended on the King, when E4 died, it became imperative for them to hold onto E5 at all costs.
However, they only had each other to rely on. The fact that they never cultivated any social network of allies, is also confirmation of their short sighted approach and lack of vision. When it all went wrong, the only thing left was for EW to run away and hide in the sanctuary. I had always thought of MB as the instigator of the HT and EofY negotiations, but I now think that EW sought her out and offered her the one thing she knew MB wanted most - Henry's return plus a excellent marriage prospect - in exchange for the support of MB's network.
I can't be sure what Richard intended for the Woodvilles, but they may well have had more to fear than demotion for their role in Clarence's execution. The posts about Clarence are very interesting, especially the comment that E4 wished someone had saved him from executing Clarence. This highlights his real lack of personal responsibility that led to the Woodvilles riding roughshod over everyone else - even though he removed Richard for supporting sparing Clarence. Nevertheless, those regrets may have marked the turning point for the Woodvilles, such as the changing of the will and distancing himself from them. I can't see Richard giving them any more than necessary, and if legally possible, he may have charged them with something. Titulus Regius mentions witchcraft, and EW could have faced the same charges as Jacquetta.
It is difficult to come up with a motive for the murder of Isabel Neville, but the reason why I didn't rule it out was Clarence's reaction insisting that it was murder and the subsequent hanging of Ankarette Twynho. Grief stricken people often look for someone to blame, but this does seem extraordinary at a time when a young person dying suddenly of natural causes wasn't an unusual event, but even then he may have been completely wrong. The others I am inclined to discount.
Nico





On Friday, 9 March 2018, 10:22:45 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

No Milton Keynes isn't settling in Doug and it's the home of that most dreaded creature, the Milton Keynes 'boy racer' who treats all its sterile roads like Brands Hatch - so sorry if anyone on here lives at Milton Keynes, there are some leafy bits!
Considering you've never driven those roads I reckon you and your atlas have got the geography spot on in ambush terms. That's how I now see it too. Richard had managed to divide and conquer, and as I think you said earlier I doubt Rivers' heart was much in it. Perhaps Buckingham picked something of that up? H
On Friday, 9 March 2018, 00:03:55 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

I would like to congratulate everyone for their contributions to this debate. This brainstorming of evidence is just what is needed to get some sort of picture of what may have happened 1483 -1485. We may never know exactly what happened because, while the Chroniclers wrote down what was told to them, we can't know what was said in private conversations. The fact that Marie and Hilary have access to primary sources is invaluable and Marie's knowledge of Latin has cleared up so many points that we were not aware of before. Hilary's knowledge of who was doing what, where and who they were married to is another asset. So everyone keep on speculating so that we can find new evidence. Incidentally Hilary I think your point about people rebelling in other reigns is spot on. Some nineteenth century historians have a lot to answer for.

Thanks Mary. For me, and I guess for all, it once again proves that many brains are much better than one! H
On Friday, 9 March 2018, 12:11:29 GMT, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

I would like to congratulate everyone for their contributions to this debate. This brainstorming of evidence is just what is needed to get some sort of picture of what may have happened 1483 -1485. We may never know exactly what happened because, while the Chroniclers wrote down what was told to them, we can't know what was said in private conversations. The fact that Marie and Hilary have access to primary sources is invaluable and Marie's knowledge of Latin has cleared up so many points that we were not aware of before. Hilary's knowledge of who was doing what, where and who they were married to is another asset. So everyone keep on speculating so that we can find new evidence. Incidentally Hilary I think your point about people rebelling in other reigns is spot on. Some nineteenth century historians have a lot to answer for.

Hilary wrote:

"[1.] don't forget there were other people who had a motive to damage Clarence. There he was deeply ensconced in Lancaster territory - the South West, in the very home of the family who had been proclaimed traitors and suffered dreadful consequences at the hands of his brother - the Hungerfords.

On Friday, 16 March 2018, 01:28:39 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

"[1.] don't forget there were other people who had a motive to damage Clarence. There he was deeply ensconced in Lancaster territory - the South West, in the very home of the family who had been proclaimed traitors and suffered dreadful consequences at the hands of his brother - the Hungerfords.

Hilary wrote:

"[1.] don't forget there were other people who had a motive to damage Clarence. There he was deeply ensconced in Lancaster territory - the South West, in the very home of the family who had been proclaimed traitors and suffered dreadful consequences at the hands of his brother - the Hungerfords.

A guest post by Ted Powell highlights an unusual accusation of treason against a leading supporter of Henry V  ...

Hilary wrote:

"[1.] don't forget there were other people who had a motive to damage Clarence. There he was deeply ensconced in Lancaster territory - the South West, in the very home of the family who had been proclaimed traitors and suffered dreadful consequences at the hands of his brother - the Hungerfords.

Hilary,
I'm likely incorrect, but wasn't Lollardy also associated with the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt? At least until he became nervous about some of its' more literal interpretations about money and wealth? As best I can tell, Henry IV, V, and VI were all anti-Lollard, so I don't see the likelihood of there being some sort of Lancastrian/Lollard connection in the mid-1470s. Then again, it's not as if I've got a 100% record of being correct!
However, several things did come to mind concerning that Commission. Had Richard or George ever served on any such Commission before? Could Edward have involved those from the Wiltshire High Sherriff set as an attempt to sow discord, at the least, amongst them and the various bigwigs of Dorset and Wiltshire? Because it sounds to me an awful lot like a fishing expedition on Edward's part.
However, am I correct in presuming that during this period in time, the mid- to late 15th century, the main focus of Oxford, and Cambridge for that matter, was in producing members of the clergy? So, do we know of any complaints being made to Edward concerning what was being taught at Oxford? Perhaps there were fears of that university going the same way Cambridge had earlier and was producing heretics that were being scattered across the countryside? If so, Edward would need to know what those graduates were doing once they were appointed to various livings. BTW, didn't members of the local gentry often have the approval (I think that's the term) of the local priest? If members of the gentry in Dorset and Wiltshire were appointing priests with dubious religious views, the next question to arise would be: Why were those members of the local gentry doing that? Were they being advised to do so by someone, and if so, who?
OTOH, if this Commission had a political basis, regardless of its' official reason for existence, it sounds very much as if Edward was doing what I described above: fishing for information; who was friends with whom, what various peoples' views were, and then seeing if anything could be made out of the gathered information.
Doug
Who may be slighting him but has a hard time picturing Edward as actually being worried about the religious views of members of the Church and their parishioners...
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, see my reply to Marie.
I could really do with your Poirot skills with regard to that Commission of Dec 1475. So we have Richard and George heading a list of folk (mainly from the Wiltshire High Sheriff set) looking into heresies in Dorset and Wiltshire. Many of them will be come 1483 rebels and Colyngbourne of course is there. I can't yet find any other such Commissions, but I'm in the early days.
I've tried to look at Lollardy at this time but of course most authors concentrate on when it was at its height at the beginning of the century. They just say that later it became more 'political'. And investigations were originally lead by the Clergy in the main. I've said before that many of these folk, like the Stonors as well, lead me back to Oxford Uni, Wiliam of Wykeham and his followers. Now Dorset could have harnessed these folk after the fall of Clarence, but is there something else we're missing?

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

That would be quite a trial transcript wouldn't it?

That would be quite a trial transcript wouldn't it?

Hilary wrote:

Re Crowland's claim that Rivers "had been sent by the king, his nephew, to submit the conduct of everything to the will and discretion of his uncle the duke of Gloucester", Hilary wrote:

"If it is the case, then I agree it starts to look as though young Edward had a will of his own. And why would the one who 'dictated' this to the chronicler want to mention it? After all, it justifies Richard's later actions if Rivers et al were deemed not to be acting for the good of the realm.

Marie answers:

I would take "had been sent by the king" with a spoon or two of salt myself. Just like all the letters sent out in Edward V's name, I see this as a legal fiction - Edward was being told what to do by whoever was in charge of him at the time. I think, if it is true and not just Crowland trying to justify Rivers' actions, then it would have been Rivers attempting to get Richard to rubber stamp the plans that had already been made for the overnight accommodation, the entry into London and the rushed coronation.

The protests which, according to Mancini, the bewildered young king made to Richard after the arrests the next morning seem to indicate that he had believed Rivers and Vaughan had every right to be in charge of him because they were the men his father had chosen to guide him.

P.S. While I think of it, re David's observation that there was a 10-day (?) fair in Northampton starting on St George's Day: from my reading of the passage in the Victoria County History, the charter for this fair was not granted until the 1490s and the previous charter for the St George's fair had licensed it only for a three-day duration. If so, then in 1483 the fair should have finished on the 25th, and the mess been all cleared up by the 29th.

Hilary wrote to Doug:

Nicholas wrote:

"However, some questions do remain. Isabel Neville died on 22 December 1476, although the alleged poisoning took place on October 10. That is a long time for a childbirth induced infection, although she could have become ill with something else, and I can't see any realistic motivation for murdering the baby died who on New Years Day 1477. That was probably a natural cause even if hers wasn't. Also, dying in childbirth was an occupational hazard of having children in the 15th century, which raises the suspicion that he did indeed find something unusual."

Marie replies:

It's an even longer time for a single dose of poison, though - Ankarette was accused of having given Isabel a dose of poison (mixed in a cup of ale) on 10 October, five days after the birth, from which she languished until her death on 22 December. Perhaps the causes of death were complex, but began with a uterine infection and then a fever, with perhaps further complications setting in later - the monks of Tewkesbury recorded that she was sick when Clarence had her moved back to Warwick on 12 November.

I don't know why there is no accusation of Ankarette having administered a second dose of poison nearer the time of death, but I wonder if perhaps she didn't actually go back to Warwick with the Clarences but began a period of home leave?

The obvious suspicion for Clarence, given that he accused John Thursby of poisoning the baby on 21 December, the very day before Isabel died, (also with poison mixed with ale) would have been that Thursby had repoisoned Isabel as well, but if he had added that to the indictment it would have necessitated Ankarette's acquittal of the actual murder, and he was clearly determined to hang her.

It's far more likely that Isabel had developing puerperal fever and Ankarette administered her a herbal drink to help her symptoms, and that John Thursby, if he was involved at all, inadvertently gave the baby food poisoning by trying him on a sip of ale. Certainly later events proved that Clarence was wrong in his belief that the King (and his in-laws) were out to kill all his family.

By the by, the Act of Attainder doesn't give dates for any of the accusations. The plot to smuggle little Warwick abroad is described as having happened "now late".

Hilary wrote:

Nicholas wrote:

"However, some questions do remain. Isabel Neville died on 22 December 1476, although the alleged poisoning took place on October 10. That is a long time for a childbirth induced infection, although she could have become ill with something else, and I can't see any realistic motivation for murdering the baby died who on New Years Day 1477. That was probably a natural cause even if hers wasn't. Also, dying in childbirth was an occupational hazard of having children in the 15th century, which raises the suspicion that he did indeed find something unusual."

Marie replies:

It's an even longer time for a single dose of poison, though - Ankarette was accused of having given Isabel a dose of poison (mixed in a cup of ale) on 10 October, five days after the birth, from which she languished until her death on 22 December. Perhaps the causes of death were complex, but began with a uterine infection and then a fever, with perhaps further complications setting in later - the monks of Tewkesbury recorded that she was sick when Clarence had her moved back to Warwick on 12 November.

I don't know why there is no accusation of Ankarette having administered a second dose of poison nearer the time of death, but I wonder if perhaps she didn't actually go back to Warwick with the Clarences but began a period of home leave?

The obvious suspicion for Clarence, given that he accused John Thursby of poisoning the baby on 21 December, the very day before Isabel died, (also with poison mixed with ale) would have been that Thursby had repoisoned Isabel as well, but if he had added that to the indictment it would have necessitated Ankarette's acquittal of the actual murder, and he was clearly determined to hang her.

It's far more likely that Isabel had developing puerperal fever and Ankarette administered her a herbal drink to help her symptoms, and that John Thursby, if he was involved at all, inadvertently gave the baby food poisoning by trying him on a sip of ale. Certainly later events proved that Clarence was wrong in his belief that the King (and his in-laws) were out to kill all his family.

By the by, the Act of Attainder doesn't give dates for any of the accusations. The plot to smuggle little Warwick abroad is described as having happened "now late".

Hilary wrote to Doug:

Hilary wrote:

"I don't think that Ankarette murdered Isabel either, but Clarence probably knew she came from a family with a record and had to grab someone. It does seem a long time for puerperal fever to develop though. I would have thought more a week than a month."

Marie replies:

Puerperal fever typically develops during the first week after childbirth. It starts with a uterine infection and then the infection enters the bloodstream, which is when the fever starts; depending on the virulence of the infective agent and the strength of the woman's immune response, it might be overcome or kill in anything from a few days to several weeks. I have two deaths from puerperal fever in my family tree, which illustrate the point, as one lady died just a week after the birth, and the other six weeks.

Ankarette was allegedly poisoned by Ankarette five days after the birth (not a month), which surely gives us a date for the start of her illness. Five days would be quite typical for the start of puerperal fever. She evidently remained ill for a long time, as the monks record that when she and Clarence removed to Warwick on 12 November she was ill (the monks describe her as Clarence's sick wife - uxore sua infirmata). That is indeed a month after the birth but is not the earliest indication we have of Isabel's sickness.

Marie replies:

The usual source given for the burning of John Goos is the Great Chronicle (I think, from memory), which is a lot later and not precise as to the actual date. I don't know if anyone has ever tried looking for original records relating to the case.

I think what was mainly driving Edward in December 1475, when this commission was appointed, was the crime wave and general discontent with his own rule that had followed the return of the army from France. Edward had himself gone round meeting out justice (i.e. condemning people) late in 1475. But there are another couple of points to considers.

One is that this was not the first oyer and terminer commission of Edward's reign to include lollardries in its scope; Richard had been appointed to one for Lancashire in 1473. Another thing is that, as a matter of courtesy, the great lords were pretty much always appointed to the commissions for the counties in which they held land, and because names were always given in order of social precedence they appear at the head of the list. It didn't mean they were being ordered to head the commission since if the likes of Clarence and Gloucester had sat on every commission to which they were appointed they would never have done anything else. In fact, if you read the full texts of these commissions, rather than the summaries in the CPR, you find that there was a stated quorum of about four or five commissioners. Only two of the justices on the commission were actually named as having to be present. I haven't found any evidence that Richard sat in on any of the hearings that flowed from the Dec. 1475 commission, which is not surprising given that he lived at the other end of the country.

As regards Edward's concern about lollardy, I think Hilary is right and they were probably more political than religious, though not in a party-political sense. Just as it can be misleading to view all riots as signs of discontent with the incumbent king, so I think it can also be misleading to view all actual displays of discontent or anger with the king as fuelled by loyalty to the opposing dynastic house - most often the causes were real-life grievances.

Lollards were rather automatically suspect not only because they had secret meetings (they had to be secret, of course) but also because of their radical views. I think the key with Edward is the sense of fear and insecurity in which he lived after having been kicked out of the country in 1470. He was fearful of Louis XI (until Picquigny), poison in general, lollards, Clarence, dodgy magicians, you name it.

Hilary wrote:

"I don't think that Ankarette murdered Isabel either, but Clarence probably knew she came from a family with a record and had to grab someone. It does seem a long time for puerperal fever to develop though. I would have thought more a week than a month."

Marie replies:

Puerperal fever typically develops during the first week after childbirth. It starts with a uterine infection and then the infection enters the bloodstream, which is when the fever starts; depending on the virulence of the infective agent and the strength of the woman's immune response, it might be overcome or kill in anything from a few days to several weeks. I have two deaths from puerperal fever in my family tree, which illustrate the point, as one lady died just a week after the birth, and the other six weeks.

Ankarette was allegedly poisoned by Ankarette five days after the birth (not a month), which surely gives us a date for the start of her illness. Five days would be quite typical for the start of puerperal fever. She evidently remained ill for a long time, as the monks record that when she and Clarence removed to Warwick on 12 November she was ill (the monks describe her as Clarence's sick wife - uxore sua infirmata). That is indeed a month after the birth but is not the earliest indication we have of Isabel's sickness.

    Hilary, It rather looks then as if this was the more-or-less usual Commission with, perhaps, an eye out for possible supporters of MoA, doesn't it? Am I correct in presuming EW was mentioned in regard to her properties? Am I missing something about George's power in Ireland? The Wikipedia article on George had him being given that position shortly after Edward took the throne; in 1462, I think but, as far as I know, George never went to Ireland, did he? I keep seeing George being listed as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but his name doesn't appear in any of the lists of those occupying that position; there are Desmonds and Kildares and Tiptoft and a bishop, but no George! The list is titled Lord Lieutenants of Ireland, but were they? Or were they a mix of Lords Lieutenant and Deputy Lords? If George never went to Ireland  might the question be why he never did? Perhaps Edward remembered his father's use of that position? If that was the case then, and especially after the events of 1470-71, it seems likely to me that George wouldn't have been allowed to go to Ireland, nor would he have been allowed to nominate Deputies to serve in his stead. Which means, just what power did George have in Ireland? Do we have record of his nominating people to various Irish positions? Or all the nominations coming from London or wherever Edward was? Doug   Hilary wrote: Hi Doug, still working on this but I can tell you a bit. In all the CPRs for Edward (and Richard) there is no other mention of 'Lollardies', 'heresies' or 'errors - the three charges which appear in this Commission. I'm still trawling through but neither does anyone ever appear to be indicted as a result of it. There are a few things so far: Firstly, it's within roughly a month of MOA being returned to France. Secondly, it's at a time when more is being granted to Dorset and, as Hicks says, Clarence's power in Ireland is being reduced (though of course it says things are given with his agreement). EW is often mentioned with William Dudley (son of Sir John Sutton), and Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury. Beauchamp was of the Beauchamps of Powick in Worcs and died in October 1481. William Dudley was Dean of Windsor, chaplain to the household, and later Bishop of Durham. He died in October 1483 after supporting the claim of Richard to the throne. EW must have felt lonely indeed! Actually the months leading up to the death of Isabel seem relatively calm and George is still mentioned without any rancour, apart from the gradual erosion of his power in Ireland. Back when I've done more!  
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Marie,

The bit I saw about John Goos came from an article titled The Beginnings of the Reformation in a book called The Church Quarterly Review. The page looks as if the book was published late in the 19th century or early in the 20th century and the writing style also suggests that period. There's a footnote given for the Goos bit which is Lancaster and York, ii, 455 by Sir James Ramsay. He also wrote something called The Foundations of England, but that's as far as I got, so I don't know where Sir James got his information.

In regards as to the make-up of the Commissions: so the inclusion of Richard's and George's names likely only meant that they held lands in the area the Commission was operating and not that they actually were physically present as the Commission did its' job? (Something of like a celebrity sponsor for some charity then?)

I'd forgotten that the end of fighting, whether in France or elsewhere, almost always saw an increase in violence as the men came home. Add that to the list of other worries Edward had that you mentioned and the Commissions take on a different aspect; a much more normal occurrence, if you will. And the addition of Lollards, especially considering some of their radical views on property, would be a natural concern during a period of unrest in the countryside.

I think.

Doug

Marie wrote:

The usual source given for the burning of John Goos is the Great Chronicle (I think, from memory), which is a lot later and not precise as to the actual date. I don't know if anyone has ever tried looking for original records relating to the case.

I think what was mainly driving Edward in December 1475, when this commission was appointed, was the crime wave and general discontent with his own rule that had followed the return of the army from France. Edward had himself gone round meeting out justice (i.e. condemning people) late in 1475. But there are another couple of points to considers.

One is that this was not the first oyer and terminer commission of Edward's reign to include lollardries in its scope; Richard had been appointed to one for Lancashire in 1473. Another thing is that, as a matter of courtesy, the great lords were pretty much always appointed to the commissions for the counties in which they held land, and because names were always given in order of social precedence they appear at the head of the list. It didn't mean they were being ordered to head the commission since if the likes of Clarence and Gloucester had sat on every commission to which they were appointed they would never have done anything else. In fact, if you read the full texts of these commissions, rather than the summaries in the CPR, you find that there was a stated quorum of about four or five commissioners. Only two of the justices on the commission were actually named as having to be present. I haven't found any evidence that Richard sat in on any of the hearings that flowed from the Dec. 1475 commission, which is not surprising given that he lived at the other end of the country.

As regards Edward's concern about lollardy, I think Hilary is right and they were probably more political than religious, though not in a party-political sense. Just as it can be misleading to view all riots as signs of discontent with the incumbent king, so I think it can also be misleading to view all actual displays of discontent or anger with the king as fuelled by loyalty to the opposing dynastic house - most often the causes were real-life grievances.

Lollards were rather automatically suspect not only because they had secret meetings (they had to be secret, of course) but also because of their radical views. I think the key with Edward is the sense of fear and insecurity in which he lived after having been kicked out of the country in 1470. He was fearful of Louis XI (until Picquigny), poison in general, lollards, Clarence, dodgy magicians, you name it.

Hilary wrote:

There are two letters to Coventry from EW. One is the one giving the Mayor and Council venison from the Forest of Feckenham (is that Fakenham?) on 4 Sep 1474 (page 406 of the Leet Books). There is another dated 30 November from Ludlow, clearly without Edward's knowledge, thanking them for the treatment of his servant Reignold Bulkeley, who has caused a breach of the peace there. It goes on to thank them for their kindness to her and her children. Sorry I confused the two. The Ludlow thing makes me ask whether she probably saw more of little Edward than we sometimes think?

Marie:

I think that 1474 is when Prince Edward was removed to Ludlow for the first time, so I've always assumed that his mother went with him on that occasion. I don't know if we have evidence for later visits.

Marie,

The bit I saw about John Goos came from an article titled The Beginnings of the Reformation in a book called The Church Quarterly Review. The page looks as if the book was published late in the 19th century or early in the 20th century and the writing style also suggests that period. There's a footnote given for the Goos bit which is Lancaster and York, ii, 455 by Sir James Ramsay. He also wrote something called The Foundations of England, but that's as far as I got, so I don't know where Sir James got his information.

In regards as to the make-up of the Commissions: so the inclusion of Richard's and George's names likely only meant that they held lands in the area the Commission was operating and not that they actually were physically present as the Commission did its' job? (Something of like a celebrity sponsor for some charity then?)

I'd forgotten that the end of fighting, whether in France or elsewhere, almost always saw an increase in violence as the men came home. Add that to the list of other worries Edward had that you mentioned and the Commissions take on a different aspect; a much more normal occurrence, if you will. And the addition of Lollards, especially considering some of their radical views on property, would be a natural concern during a period of unrest in the countryside.

I think.

Doug

Marie wrote:

The usual source given for the burning of John Goos is the Great Chronicle (I think, from memory), which is a lot later and not precise as to the actual date. I don't know if anyone has ever tried looking for original records relating to the case.

I think what was mainly driving Edward in December 1475, when this commission was appointed, was the crime wave and general discontent with his own rule that had followed the return of the army from France. Edward had himself gone round meeting out justice (i.e. condemning people) late in 1475. But there are another couple of points to considers.

One is that this was not the first oyer and terminer commission of Edward's reign to include lollardries in its scope; Richard had been appointed to one for Lancashire in 1473. Another thing is that, as a matter of courtesy, the great lords were pretty much always appointed to the commissions for the counties in which they held land, and because names were always given in order of social precedence they appear at the head of the list. It didn't mean they were being ordered to head the commission since if the likes of Clarence and Gloucester had sat on every commission to which they were appointed they would never have done anything else. In fact, if you read the full texts of these commissions, rather than the summaries in the CPR, you find that there was a stated quorum of about four or five commissioners. Only two of the justices on the commission were actually named as having to be present. I haven't found any evidence that Richard sat in on any of the hearings that flowed from the Dec. 1475 commission, which is not surprising given that he lived at the other end of the country.

As regards Edward's concern about lollardy, I think Hilary is right and they were probably more political than religious, though not in a party-political sense. Just as it can be misleading to view all riots as signs of discontent with the incumbent king, so I think it can also be misleading to view all actual displays of discontent or anger with the king as fuelled by loyalty to the opposing dynastic house - most often the causes were real-life grievances.

Lollards were rather automatically suspect not only because they had secret meetings (they had to be secret, of course) but also because of their radical views. I think the key with Edward is the sense of fear and insecurity in which he lived after having been kicked out of the country in 1470. He was fearful of Louis XI (until Picquigny), poison in general, lollards, Clarence, dodgy magicians, you name it.

Karen wrote:

John Ashdown Hill claims George made a trio to Ireland shortly after Isabelle's death and that the Earl of Kildaire took a two year old boy into his household.

Marie:

John's theorises, rather than states, that Clarence took Warwick over to Ireland in 1477 and that the boy held in England after that time was an imposter.

There's actually no evidence of a journey to Ireland by Clarence. He was accused in the Bill of Attainder in 1478 of having tried to send his son to either Flanders or Ireland, but the Act states that the King found out because the people Clarence had entrusted with the job informed; the attempt is not dated any more clearly than by the words "now late".

The Annals of Ireland state that Warwick lived in Kildare's household whilst in Ireland, but claim that he arrived the year after Bosworth. It is only Molinet who claims that Warwick was actually raised in Ireland.

A lot more details of what was going on obviously need to be fed into the picture in order to be able draw a conclusion.

Hilary wrote:The only place I can find Goos is in Kendall and it does intimate that he was seized by the ecclesiastical authorities. Even in the days of the Lancastrian kings and later in the time of Henry VIII it was the clerics who pursued this, sometimes to the anger of the Crown.
Marie replies:As I understand it, heresy cases pretty much always involved the ecclesiastical authorities (I don't know how the oyer and terminer cases were supposed to work), but the Church as an institution couldn't burn people, it required the cooperation of the secular authorities to do it for them. Specifically, the Lord Chancellor had to authorise a burning - in other words, I presume the order had to be sealed with the Great Seal. It's difficult to see that the Chancellor would have gone ahead without the King's consent. The reason I'd like a proper date for this case is that there was a change of lord chancellor during the period in question, so it could have been either Stillington or Booth.
Hilary:I did look at Hughes's 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy' (beware he is no lover of Richard) and what's interesting is that he says that in the months/years after Picquigny there are observations that Edward was ill - which was what we speculated. H
Marie:There are indeed some hints of ill health, but a couple of those claimed by Mike Jones (which Hughes probably used) turned out to be false. But I still think there's a general picture in that direction, and I know it was discussed on the forum a few years ago.By the way, when I looked at it in detail I discovered that not only is Hughes no lover of Richard but he has no understanding of astrology - his astrological claims are based on a woeful misunderstanding of what the various terms actually meant. I also saw an online post by an aficionado of alchemy saying he doesn't understand alchemy either.

Well that's comforting considering he chose to write a book on Richard's beliefs :) :) But you have to look everywhere. It's strange that neither Hicks nor Ross mention Goos. H
On Wednesday, 21 March 2018, 15:26:51 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hilary wrote:The only place I can find Goos is in Kendall and it does intimate that he was seized by the ecclesiastical authorities. Even in the days of the Lancastrian kings and later in the time of Henry VIII it was the clerics who pursued this, sometimes to the anger of the Crown.
Marie replies:As I understand it, heresy cases pretty much always involved the ecclesiastical authorities (I don't know how the oyer and terminer cases were supposed to work), but the Church as an institution couldn't burn people, it required the cooperation of the secular authorities to do it for them. Specifically, the Lord Chancellor had to authorise a burning - in other words, I presume the order had to be sealed with the Great Seal. It's difficult to see that the Chancellor would have gone ahead without the King's consent. The reason I'd like a proper date for this case is that there was a change of lord chancellor during the period in question, so it could have been either Stillington or Booth.
Hilary:I did look at Hughes's 'Arthurian Myths and Alchemy' (beware he is no lover of Richard) and what's interesting is that he says that in the months/years after Picquigny there are observations that Edward was ill - which was what we speculated. H
Marie:There are indeed some hints of ill health, but a couple of those claimed by Mike Jones (which Hughes probably used) turned out to be false. But I still think there's a general picture in that direction, and I know it was discussed on the forum a few years ago.By the way, when I looked at it in detail I discovered that not only is Hughes no lover of Richard but he has no understanding of astrology - his astrological claims are based on a woeful misunderstanding of what the various terms actually meant. I also saw an online post by an aficionado of alchemy saying he doesn't understand alchemy either.

    Karen, Do you know on what Ashdown-Hill based that claim? It seems odd, to me anyway, that so little has been made of it; if only because it might have been the basis for Edward's claim that George was planning to send his son out of the kingdom. Doug Karen wrote: John Ashdown Hill claims George made a trio to Ireland shortly after Isabelle's death and that the Earl of Kildaire took a two year old boy into his household.    
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Karen wrote:

John Ashdown Hill claims George made a trio to Ireland shortly after Isabelle's death and that the Earl of Kildaire took a two year old boy into his household.

Marie:

John's theorises, rather than states, that Clarence took Warwick over to Ireland in 1477 and that the boy held in England after that time was an imposter.

There's actually no evidence of a journey to Ireland by Clarence. He was accused in the Bill of Attainder in 1478 of having tried to send his son to either Flanders or Ireland, but the Act states that the King found out because the people Clarence had entrusted with the job informed; the attempt is not dated any more clearly than by the words "now late".

The Annals of Ireland state that Warwick lived in Kildare's household whilst in Ireland, but claim that he arrived the year after Bosworth. It is only Molinet who claims that Warwick was actually raised in Ireland.

A lot more details of what was going on obviously need to be fed into the picture in order to be able draw a conclusion.

Hilary,
I can't imagine George really believing his brother was going to let him build up an independent fief in Ireland! I've always understood that it was the king who appointed the deputies anyway.. Am I mistaken in that? Why would George think that his appointment was anything other than the equivalent of an honorary chairmanship? A thought did just literally occur to me: Surely George wasn't so lacking in self-awareness as to fail to recognize why Edward might his Irish appointment differently that Richard's Northern one, was he?
Do you know what properties/positions Edward redistributed that had been held by Hastings? Did the properties/positions go to Edward's Woodville relations, or were they distributed elsewhere? Or, at least, some of them? If Edward was twitchy, I could see him wanting to prevent anyone, including his BFF Hastings, from concentrating too much power in their hands.
I still lean towards Hastings' alliance with EW in May/June of 1483 as one caused solely by the political situation that had developed, but if Hastings had been earlier relieved of some of his properties/positions by Edward, perhaps his alliance with the Woodvilles was an effort to regain those properties and positions as much as it was to prevent any further loss?
If Edward was suffering from diabetes, then he likely also had high blood pressure. If so, might his weight gain have been a sign of progressive kidney? I don't know exactly how long it would take to die if one's kidneys shut down, but this link:
https://www.verywell.com/dying-of-kidney-failure-what-to-expect-1132509
gave a period of a week or so.
I's starting to wonder if one of the good Bishop's duties wasn't to keep an eye on George...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, with regard to Ireland, it's Hicks who points out that George's discontent could have been fueled by Edward's appointment of deputies to some of his posts in Ireland. If you look at the CPR round about the time of this Commission (which I haven't got in front of me at the moment) you'll see he does this. I have to say Hicks's 'Clarence' is very good; I wish he'd not let prejudices mar his other works. But if this was the case then you could apply the same to Hastings, some of whose lands and powers were also 'redistributed' at this point - another reason for him not to love the Woodvilles. And Edward (and EW by her letter of 1474 to Coventry) were already starting to undermine some of Clarence's powers in Warwickshire. But Edward did give Clarence some more and in Wiltshire at this point.
As Marie says, this is a 'twitchy' Edward, forever summoning rioters to London and no doubt the Woodvilles saw an opportunity there. Going back to what we said some time ago, could part of this be a realisation that he wasn't well? Marie, whilst you were away we were speculating that he might have a chronic illness. Nico pointed out that a lot of his symptoms were suggestive of diabetes? H
BTW George 'owned' Wroxall, which is the home of the Gorges, linking him yet again with the Chokkes, Newtons and Stillington.

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

Hilary,
I can't imagine George really believing his brother was going to let him build up an independent fief in Ireland! I've always understood that it was the king who appointed the deputies anyway.. Am I mistaken in that? Why would George think that his appointment was anything other than the equivalent of an honorary chairmanship? A thought did just literally occur to me: Surely George wasn't so lacking in self-awareness as to fail to recognize why Edward might his Irish appointment differently that Richard's Northern one, was he?
Do you know what properties/positions Edward redistributed that had been held by Hastings? Did the properties/positions go to Edward's Woodville relations, or were they distributed elsewhere? Or, at least, some of them? If Edward was twitchy, I could see him wanting to prevent anyone, including his BFF Hastings, from concentrating too much power in their hands.
I still lean towards Hastings' alliance with EW in May/June of 1483 as one caused solely by the political situation that had developed, but if Hastings had been earlier relieved of some of his properties/positions by Edward, perhaps his alliance with the Woodvilles was an effort to regain those properties and positions as much as it was to prevent any further loss?
If Edward was suffering from diabetes, then he likely also had high blood pressure. If so, might his weight gain have been a sign of progressive kidney? I don't know exactly how long it would take to die if one's kidneys shut down, but this link:
https://www.verywell.com/dying-of-kidney-failure-what-to-expect-1132509
gave a period of a week or so.
I's starting to wonder if one of the good Bishop's duties wasn't to keep an eye on George...
Doug
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, with regard to Ireland, it's Hicks who points out that George's discontent could have been fueled by Edward's appointment of deputies to some of his posts in Ireland. If you look at the CPR round about the time of this Commission (which I haven't got in front of me at the moment) you'll see he does this. I have to say Hicks's 'Clarence' is very good; I wish he'd not let prejudices mar his other works. But if this was the case then you could apply the same to Hastings, some of whose lands and powers were also 'redistributed' at this point - another reason for him not to love the Woodvilles. And Edward (and EW by her letter of 1474 to Coventry) were already starting to undermine some of Clarence's powers in Warwickshire. But Edward did give Clarence some more and in Wiltshire at this point.
As Marie says, this is a 'twitchy' Edward, forever summoning rioters to London and no doubt the Woodvilles saw an opportunity there. Going back to what we said some time ago, could part of this be a realisation that he wasn't well? Marie, whilst you were away we were speculating that he might have a chronic illness. Nico pointed out that a lot of his symptoms were suggestive of diabetes? H
BTW George 'owned' Wroxall, which is the home of the Gorges, linking him yet again with the Chokkes, Newtons and Stillington.

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

Hilary wrote:

And then, after about March 1476, things somehow slow down. There are still the same pardons, the same rewards to servants, but you don't feel Edward's all-commanding presence and control. Is this when the illness began to take hold? I did wonder whether he had also contracted malaria. That part of France is rife with mosquitoes, know I go on holiday there and I think Henry VIII is also believed to have caught it at the Field of the Cloth of Gold? It could well emulate a 'chill' as in his final illness.

Marie:

Hall actually states that Edward caught 'the ague' on the French campaign. Apparently malaria wasn't eradicated from that region until the 1950s.

Hilary wrote:

And then, after about March 1476, things somehow slow down. There are still the same pardons, the same rewards to servants, but you don't feel Edward's all-commanding presence and control. Is this when the illness began to take hold? I did wonder whether he had also contracted malaria. That part of France is rife with mosquitoes, know I go on holiday there and I think Henry VIII is also believed to have caught it at the Field of the Cloth of Gold? It could well emulate a 'chill' as in his final illness.

Marie:

Hall actually states that Edward caught 'the ague' on the French campaign. Apparently malaria wasn't eradicated from that region until the 1950s.

Hi Nico,
I'm not sure what you mean by the same John Taylor who was involved with Warwick?
The John Taylor tasked with taking Warwick to Flanders or Ireland (the destination doesn't seem to have been decided when Tapton and Harewell informed) continued to be employed by Edward IV as steward of the lands he had looked after for Clarence, so there can have been no suspicion that he had actually made off with Clarence's son.
I really don't think Edward would have declared this plot openly before parliament unless he was quite sure it had been successfully foiled.

Doesn't malaria keep coming back too? My old boss caught it in a Japanese prisoner of war camp and he kept getting bouts of it afterwards.

Hilary, could we have a bit more info on the fraternity at Stony Stratford, if not too much trouble ? Prayers for the royal family were normally included in the proposals for chantries and fraternities where a royal licence was required. There were many such places, and usually of no particular interest to the royals thereafter.
I think Stony Stratford was simply well placed, about as far as EV's retinue could reasonably have gone that day, and a market town with inns.

Hilary:

Marie CPR 21 May 1476 page 584. I don't think it's spectacular, loads of chantry foundations. But it caught my attention because it's at Stony Stratford and secondly it mentions ROY, Edmund etc. Just the sort of place AW might say it was a good place for young Edward to stop to say a prayer for his grandfather and uncle who had been the means of him becoming King?

Marie replies:

Thanks, Hilary. I've looked it up. It is a fraternity as you first indicated, not a chantry. In other words it wasn't a chapel where they could go and pray, but just a gild of local citizens. They probably did make use of a particular chapel in the local church but it is not mentioned in the licence, presumably because any such arrangements did not concern the King.

There certainly are more members of the royal family mentioned than usual, i.e. York and Rutland as you say, but also the Queen's parents the late Lord Rivers and the Duchess Jacquetta. Given the proximity of Stony Stratford to Grafton, therefore, I would suspect the founders had - or hoped to obtain - Woodville patronage for their fraternity, and even perhaps the membership of members of the Queen's family. I wonder if any of the fraternity's records survive? It would be interesting.

But I really don't think this provides an anything like adequate excuse for the King pressing on to Stony Stratford to spend the night. He could very easily have popped into the fraternity chapel when passing through the next day to say a few prayers. In fact, Stony Stratford would have been a good place for lunch.

Hilary:

Marie CPR 21 May 1476 page 584. I don't think it's spectacular, loads of chantry foundations. But it caught my attention because it's at Stony Stratford and secondly it mentions ROY, Edmund etc. Just the sort of place AW might say it was a good place for young Edward to stop to say a prayer for his grandfather and uncle who had been the means of him becoming King?

Marie replies:

Thanks, Hilary. I've looked it up. It is a fraternity as you first indicated, not a chantry. In other words it wasn't a chapel where they could go and pray, but just a gild of local citizens. They probably did make use of a particular chapel in the local church but it is not mentioned in the licence, presumably because any such arrangements did not concern the King.

There certainly are more members of the royal family mentioned than usual, i.e. York and Rutland as you say, but also the Queen's parents the late Lord Rivers and the Duchess Jacquetta. Given the proximity of Stony Stratford to Grafton, therefore, I would suspect the founders had - or hoped to obtain - Woodville patronage for their fraternity, and even perhaps the membership of members of the Queen's family. I wonder if any of the fraternity's records survive? It would be interesting.

But I really don't think this provides an anything like adequate excuse for the King pressing on to Stony Stratford to spend the night. He could very easily have popped into the fraternity chapel when passing through the next day to say a few prayers. In fact, Stony Stratford would have been a good place for lunch.

The fraternity could have hosted EV, but the bottom line is that a meeting of all parties at Northampton was clearly prearranged so EV needed a much better excuse than that to break it. I can't believe that wanting to meet the Stony S fraternity would have been so important to EV that it would cause him to let everybody down like that. What about the Luton fraternity further down the road? We know EW and Cecily were founder members of that (can't recall whether EIV was) as it was the brainchild of Thomas Rotherham's brother.
If EV did use the SS guild as a rationale for not waiting at Northampton ( and we have no evidence that he did), then surely it was a cover story.