Grafton Regis ambush?

Sometimes I feel our Richard moves in mysterious ways.

I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.

You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-handside the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor Farm).

But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you go to the top of the church tower.

I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand, Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15 mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through Stony Stratford anyway.

To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go through locations without really taking due notice.. H

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Great post Hilary. Also shows how some so called historians just accept everything that More, Crowland, Mancini and Shakespeare tell them without question whereas on this Forum we question everything. Ok you didn't raise these questions on previous journeys but as soon as you were trapped in traffic you saw what was probably intended to happen.

Yes it is weird about Edward not going to Northampton if the others were isn't it? The only certainty we seem to have (I say seem on purpose) is that Edward was coming from Ludlow. So as you say Rivers must have been in East Anglia to agree to meet with Richard in Northampton, otherwise why not take Edward, and why no civic reception for the young King? It doesn't seem as though Edward was intended to go there, does it? A silly thought, but could he not have been well enough to make that extra detour? There were rumours about his health, but did that come later? H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 17:46:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

A very insightful post. I have never actually been to Grafton Regis or Stony Stratford, but you get the idea if you go on Street view.. As you 'drive' along the A508, you can see the elevation just before you get to Grafton Regis and it goes down again as you leave giving the clear views on either side. When you combine the unusual circumstances and positions of AW in Northampton, EV in Stony Stratford, AW's manor being an excellent location for an ambush and the EW fleeing to the Sanctuary for no apparent reason, that tends to support a different version of the traditionalist view.
Nico



On Friday, 13 April 2018, 10:15:55 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes it is weird about Edward not going to Northampton if the others were isn't it? The only certainty we seem to have (I say seem on purpose) is that Edward was coming from Ludlow. So as you say Rivers must have been in East Anglia to agree to meet with Richard in Northampton, otherwise why not take Edward, and why no civic reception for the young King? It doesn't seem as though Edward was intended to go there, does it? A silly thought, but could he not have been well enough to make that extra detour? There were rumours about his health, but did that come later? H
On Thursday, 12 April 2018, 17:46:12 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Hilary. That's very interesting, what you say about the topography.
What I'm concluding is that Rivers never had been at Ludlow, and possibly not at Grafton either (not in the usual by-the-way sense, anyway) in the days leading up to April 29, but was more likely coming from N Norfolk or Lynn where he had been the previous month.
Northampton was picked as a rendezvous - and all writers seem agreed that it was - because it was somewhere convenient for all sides which had ample accommodation. Also remember that this journey would have been EV's first progress in all but name. Showing himself - and administering oaths of allegiance - at major towns along the route would have been really important. Stony S. just wouldn't have been any substitute for a borough such as Northampton. Bypassing Northampton, whether by the original plan or a last-minute change- would have been very poor PR.
Bypassing Northampton when it was the chosen rendezvous would have been very peculiar indeed. Not only would this have disappointed Richard and Buckingham, but also the civic corporation and the important townspeople, who would have had a grand and expensive reception prepared.
Hmmm>

Hilary,
I can't say how pleased I am about your discovery! I was going solely by
where those side roads met the A 508, but apparently there were
topographical reasons for where the roads were, which makes sense! After
all, why ride or walk up and down hills when you can take a more level
route?
I agree with you that for anyone coming from Ludlow, Towcester would make a
much more sensible stop-over. However if, as Marie has proposed in at least
one of her posts, Northampton was an agreed-upon rendezvous for all parties,
with "all" heavily under-lined, then why wasn't Edward there as well? I tend
to think that it was where Edward wasn't that first alerted Richard that
something was up.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was
taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once
more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a
beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton
Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable
diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the
road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.
You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-hand
side the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see
straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical
blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was
the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor
Farm).
But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that
the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up
and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the
arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for
miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's
approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to
signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug
identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you
go to the top of the church tower.
I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's
quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big
diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand,
Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15
mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have
been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through
Stony Stratford anyway.
To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go
through locations without really taking due notice."

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

I think both of you are brilliant. And, I wonder if any other recent experts have ever taken the time to drive the area slowly and carefully!

From: <>
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 11:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Grafton Regis ambush?

I knew you'd be happy! I should have sussed it out when I said one of your side roads ran to the canal centre - canals don't run through hills unless they can help it. And the fact that it's still designated the Forest of Salcey indicates it was once even more wooded.

Congratulations to you and your atlas! H

On Friday, 13 April 2018, 15:52:54 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
I can't say how pleased I am about your discovery! I was going solely by
where those side roads met the A 508, but apparently there were
topographical reasons for where the roads were, which makes sense! After
all, why ride or walk up and down hills when you can take a more level
route?
I agree with you that for anyone coming from Ludlow, Towcester would make a
much more sensible stop-over. However if, as Marie has proposed in at least
one of her posts, Northampton was an agreed-upon rendezvous for all parties,
with "all" heavily under-lined, then why wasn't Edward there as well? I tend
to think that it was where Edward wasn't that first alerted Richard that
something was up.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
"I was recently returning from holiday and after a tortuous journey that was
taking 2 hours' longer than usual, I found myself tossed off the MI once
more because of another 40 minute predicted delay. And there I was on a
beautiful afternoon on the A508, heading to Stony Stratford through Grafton
Regis. And I was forcibly going slower because I was in the inevitable
diverted queue. So I could take a proper survey of the countryside and the
road. And I noticed something I hadn't before.
You pass very quickly through the village of Roade and then on the left-hand
side the countryside opens out to Bedfordshire fields, where you can see
straight across to Hanslope. On the right-hand side there is the typical
blend of big Northants estates, sheep fields and what the GPS tells me was
the forest of Salcey. (There are also signs to Hartwell and Furtho Manor
Farm).
But what I'd neglected to notice before (because I wasn't looking) was that
the land undulates, in fact the road as you approach Grafton Regis goes up
and down like a roller-coaster. And Grafton sits at the very top of the
arc - you can see it for miles from both sides and it can see both sides for
miles! So anyone stationed at Grafton would be able to see Richard's
approach for about 2 miles. And on the other side, they would be able to
signal to potential ambushers in the 'valley' on the roads that Doug
identified. It really is an ideal spot. You can probably see further if you
go to the top of the church tower.
I carried on to the A5 and again I noted a couple of things. Firstly, it's
quite a long way from Grafton to Stony Stratford, so it's certainly a big
diversion to go all the way to Northampton from there. On the other hand,
Towcester is very handy - just six miles, as the sign I was stuck by for 15
mins said. If Rivers (and Buckingham) had come from Ludlow, it would have
been stupid to go to Northampton when Richard would have to pass through
Stony Stratford anyway.
To me it just demonstrates how often we take things for granted and go
through locations without really taking due notice."

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

I tried doing a detour by Grafton on my way south from Loughborough today, but my Sat Nav went stubbornly haywire and kept taking me up and down the M1 in different directions so in the end I had to give up (the curse of the Woodvilles or what?). I'll try again on my way home next week.
Is anyone able to look up Crowland or Mancini to check whether they believed there was an agreed rendezvous with Richard? I've nothing here with me but my phone.
Incidentally, a few interesting facts on Coventry came out of the weekend. First, it was held to belong to the Prince of Wales in some sense, and was known as the Prince's Chamber'. Hence MoA and QE focusing so much on the town with their sons. Second, Coventry traditionally gave each king £100 and a gold cup on his first visit. Henry Tudor actually rode back to Coventry to get his 2 days after Bosworth. So it certainly looks likely that EV would have entered Coventry on his journey from Ludlow and got his reward. It's yet one more motive for him to have taken the Midlands route.

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :) Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain: Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

After a bit of digging I see that Bucks owned a favourite Stafford residence in Writtle and other places in Essex. Could he have been there? H
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :)  Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain:  Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@ yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

After a bit of digging I see that Bucks owned a favourite Stafford residence in Writtle and other places in Essex. Could he have been there? H
On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 11:27:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

It has been fascinating how a picture is starting to emerge about the routes and locations that make an planned ambush seem credible. How much do we know about Buckingham's life before 1483 that could might give some indication of his motivation and loyalty?

We had an interesting thread last year about Edward of Middleham and the lack of contemporary records of his death, even from York where he had been invested only a few months before. However, as King, Edward V was a much more public figure than EofM, and it does seem strange that there are no expense claims from towns where Edward V passed through or even accounts of him passing through various places. Perhaps the lack of expense claims was related to the chaos after Stony Stratford where his 3 main handlers were arrested, but there must have been other people in the retinue who could have claimed expenses. Surely, a new king's visit to any town would be an event and he would make public appearances, so why was there such a low profile? Some of the mystery about Edward V is because he spent so much time out of the way in Ludlow, but this should have been an opportunity to introduce him to the public, which raises the question that Anthony Woodville was so desperate to maintain custody until the coronation that he intentionally kept him under wraps to create confusion about his location. This is something else that could have raised Richard's suspicions.

Nico


On Monday, 16 April 2018, 10:37:30 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

That sounds an interesting book, Doug! :)  Northants is very beautiful and used to be very cheap because it was undiscovered. Now it costs a fortune. How I wish we'd bought there, though not so sure about the green wellies and gun-dog.
I was reading Carpenter last week and one of her very sensible assertions is that Edward (IV) used the gentry to clip the wings of what remained of the nobility. I know I've said earlier that he undermined Clarence during his tenure in Warwickshire; well Warwick had a hellish time. Every time Warwick went North, two or three of the most influential local gentry would resurrect their land quarrels, Warwick would try to control them but to no avail. And if Warwick appealed to Edward, Edward would purposely delay responding, or hand out such lenient penalties that they got bolder and bolder. And you'll recall that even when Rivers was acting on behalf of the younger Edward the King would intervene and deal direct, in this case, with Covenry. Rivers should have noted that.
That's something I don't think the Woodvilles grasped - Edward wasn't giving the gentry power, he was using their 'nuisance factor'. I reckon the isolated Woodvilles were really still gentry at heart; they had to be, their connections were with the gentry. But they misjudged what they thought was the power of the gentry. Hence Dorset's 'we are so powerful' claim, and the use of the gentry in the October rebellions. Like the nobility as Buckingham was to discover, they had no power, only the monarch had that. And with a young monarch it would be ultimately with the Protector, whose wings could also be clipped if the Council didn't like him. And, unfortunately for them, the Council did seem to like Richard. If they didn't then surely they would have enquired more into the events at Stony Stratford?
I also agree with Marie's version, I think we begin to get the bones of what happened. To me two unresolved issues remain:  Buckingham (of course) and also the young King, about whom we know surprisingly little. I find that odd in itself. This was someone brought up to rule from birth, yet we have no remnants of anything he'd said or done - think of Edward VI at nine! And not a single claim for expenses of anyone in the towns through which he supposedly passed. Like the death of EOM it's distinctly odd. H
On Sunday, 15 April 2018, 15:34:07 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <@yahoog roups.com> wrote:

 

Yes Nico I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. It appears that people just accepted that AW was at Ludlow. I takes a bit of brainstorming, people who have knowledge of contemporary evidence and a clearer picture begins to emerge. We may not be right but it is possible that we are and in any case it is equally as acceptable a scenario as what we have been led to believe previously.

Paul, I would love to see your script performed one day. Buckingham is real little brat in this scene; is that an indication of what is to come?

I had forgotten about the complex relationships between the people in this scene. I'm curious about Buckingham's early life, and his relationship with the Stafford family, especially Henry Stafford and Margaret Beaufort and how it related to what he did in 1483. He was the senior male Stafford while still a child, which may have given him a massive ego and sense of entitlement. There weren't many male Staffords left, so I would be surprised if he didn't spend quite a lot of time with his uncle Henry and Margaret Beaufort who was also related to his mother. They had no children together, so perhaps they doted on Buckingham as a child. Did MB draw him in when she was plotting with EW, but then he got ideas of his own or was it the other way around? The plotting between EW and MB seems to have begun around the time that Buckinhgham became disillusioned with his rewards from Richard. Would she have supported Buckingham as King? As long as HT was coming home, personally I think she would have preferred him to an illegitimate boy King dominated by Dorset.
I also wish there was more on his relationship with the Woodvilles, especially Anthony. It was said that he resented his marriage to Catherine Woodville, but that may not be true and they may have seen him as useful to include in a conspiracy.
Nico


On Wednesday, 18 April 2018, 19:30:10 GMT+1, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Yes Nico I have had similar thoughts over the last few days. It appears that people just accepted that AW was at Ludlow. I takes a bit of brainstorming, people who have knowledge of contemporary evidence and a clearer picture begins to emerge. We may not be right but it is possible that we are and in any case it is equally as acceptable a scenario as what we have been led to believe previously.

Marie,
Well, presuming Buckingham did start from Brecon, and that he also waited
until the day after St. George's Day to set out, that would likely have put
him roughly a day behind Edward's party, I believe. Perhaps his possible
late arrival in Northampton was simply due to his never having "caught up"
with Edward's party? However, if Buckingham's party managed to close the gap
by, say, an hour or so each day, that might account for arrival time at
Northampton. Presuming, of course, that he did arrive late.
As to the "why" he'd take the longer route, I'm holding on to my original
idea that he was simply trying to establish a relationship with the new
king. If that indeed was the case, then even had Buckingham caught up with
Edward somewhere along the route, in his attempt to establish that
relationship, Buckingham may have viewed AW as the person most likely to
assist him in establishing that relationship. Now, I've always presumed
that knowledge of Richard being proposed as Protector started to spread when
Edward IV made out his will; but even so, just how widespread would that
knowledge have been? IOW, could it have been that, while AW most likely
already knew Richard had been nominated as Edward's Protector (otherwise why
the rushed coronation?), Buckingham didn't - and didn't discover that fact
until his arrival in Northampton? Where he, as you put it, "switched sides."
Buckingham's aim would have remained the same, getting close to the new
king; only the route would have changed from AW to Richard.
Might Richard's actions at Northampton/Stony Stratford best be explained by,
first AW not having Edward at Northampton, second, discovering from
Buckingham that Edward's coronation was scheduled for 5 May and then topped
off by learning about the proposed ambush? The first two would have alerted
Richard something was up, and the third might very well have been discovered
simply by asking around Northampton as to where AW's men were.
"We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light." Oh
boy, could we!
Doug

Marie wrote:
Hi Doug,
"I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about Buckingham. I don't have my
books and notes to hand, and they probably wouldn't be clear enough anyway.
I've got a feeling at least one source says he was in Wales, but I can't be
sure, and it might not be accurate anyway.
Obviously if he had started from Brecon ( quite some way south ofLudlow) you
would have expected him to have taken the Thames valley route unless he was
intending to join the royal party at Ludlow. In that scenario, unless he had
set out late and failed to catch the King's party up, then it would look as
though he parted company with them. But if so, why did he allegedly turn up
to Northampton late, well after Rivers?
I would like to know more. I don't feel we have enough to go on with regard
to Buckingham, except that he does seem to have been the person who
persuaded Richard the Woodvilles were up to no good, so unless he made that
up in order to curry favour with Richard and remove a rival (Rivers), which
I wouldn't put past him, the only other explanation is that he had been
included in the Woodville plans.
We could really do with some more pieces of evidence coming to light."

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

Dorset definitely seems to have been in London, which is why he wasn't arrested at Stony Stratford. Mancini says when the news of the arrests reached London, Dorset and the Queen initially tried to raise the city against Gloucester, but nobody was interested. So he took sanctuary with his mother.
His younger brother, Richard Grey, had come up from London, however.

The confusion with Dorset arises from the later London chronicles, all based on a draft of c.1495, which incorrectly place the Marquess at Stony Stratford.

Re Buckingham's whereabouts, I'd like to look and see what evidence we have of his whereabouts on other occasions, to see which were his favourite residences.
No it's a good point that he didn't know EIV was going to die, so if he was at Brecon he wouldn't have got the news for several days.
I'm not sure he realised how unpopular he was in Brecon or he wouldn't have chosen it for his base for the rebellion. There's a possibility, in fact, that he was unpopular there *because* he was well known. Richard's grants of Welsh offices to him perhaps suggest that Buckingham regarded Wales as his power base. Don't know. Another place he might have used a lot is Thornbury- on the way to Brecon if you take the ferry across the Bristol Channel- but also well away from the capital..
Marie

Hi Hilary,

Sorry for the delay. I was travelling over the middle days of last week (I failed to see Grafton again as it was pouring with rain so I didn't bother trying), and have had a lot to catch up with since I got home.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Sorry for the delay. I was travelling over the middle days of last week (I failed to see Grafton again as it was pouring with rain so I didn't bother trying), and have had a lot to catch up with since I got home.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early 1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e. Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out there?
Still catching up with the rest. H




On Saturday, 21 April 2018, 13:16:56 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
In regards to the "Where's Henry?" question, did he own any other properties
in the general vicinity? Could his late arrival at Northampton be explained
by a messenger having to discover just where Buckingham was before informing
him about the Northampton meeting? How complete are the records of
Buckingham College? If Stafford visited, one would think there'd be a
record, if there isn't, then we could move Cambridge to the bottom of the
list.
From Marie's posts, it appears that AW often headed off to his properties in
Norfolk, so his being in that area wouldn't be unusual. Then there'd likely
be Easter celebrations at Walsingham which he could attend.
The more I learn about AW, the more I see him as a dilettante; dabbling
first in this area, then in another, but not taking the time to really
master the ins and outs of any one subject. It was likely Nico who
suggested AW as the "ringleader," as my view of him wouldn't have him
remaining concentrated on any one subject long enough to master it.
However, he could very well have been the "manager;" if only by default,
because of his position as the "senior" male.
FWIW, my view of the planned ambush is that it was a spur of the moment
plan, decided on when AW learned that Richard hadn't brought a large number
of men with him. Had AW been certain Richard would only be accompanied by a
hundred or so men, there was no reason not to kill or capture Richard at
their first meeting in Northampton. Edward could have been, as he actually
was, safely parked at Stony Stratford with a couple of hundred men, while AW
with the remaining thousand or so "took care of business" in Northampton.
However, that scenario depended on knowing how many men Richard had with
him, something AW didn't discover until the actual meeting. Thus the plan
for an "ambush," presumably by "bandits." Not only would it remove Richard,
and Buckingham, but it would also provide a gloss of "plausible deniability"
if so desired: "I didn't kill Richard, those bandits did!"
Perhaps some of his later actions, such as the rebellion, might be better
explained by Buckingham having not only supported Richard as Protector from
the beginning, but because he provided some sort of information concerning
the Woodvilles' plans? Buckingham could reason that Richard owed his life
to Buckingham and feel aggrieved when he wasn't included in Richard's
governing inner-circle?
As for Morton, I'm still viewing him as being someone well aware of his own
abilities and willing to serve anyone who viewed his abilities similarly.
Whether that somebody was the Woodvilles, Richard or Henry Tudor really
didn't matter. What did was seeing Morton as he saw himself and, most
importantly, putting him in a position where he could employ those
abilities.
Doug
My apologies as well for taking so long in responding (apparently I get some
of the posts, but not all!).

Hilary wrote:
"Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of
Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a
logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham
College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have
been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I
wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I
notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early
1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton
was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e.
Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than
substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico
who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded
this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his
lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was
bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not
have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it
gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried
him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I
agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to
the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out
there?
Still catching up with the rest."

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

Hilary,
In regards to the "Where's Henry?" question, did he own any other properties
in the general vicinity? Could his late arrival at Northampton be explained
by a messenger having to discover just where Buckingham was before informing
him about the Northampton meeting? How complete are the records of
Buckingham College? If Stafford visited, one would think there'd be a
record, if there isn't, then we could move Cambridge to the bottom of the
list.
From Marie's posts, it appears that AW often headed off to his properties in
Norfolk, so his being in that area wouldn't be unusual. Then there'd likely
be Easter celebrations at Walsingham which he could attend.
The more I learn about AW, the more I see him as a dilettante; dabbling
first in this area, then in another, but not taking the time to really
master the ins and outs of any one subject. It was likely Nico who
suggested AW as the "ringleader," as my view of him wouldn't have him
remaining concentrated on any one subject long enough to master it.
However, he could very well have been the "manager;" if only by default,
because of his position as the "senior" male.
FWIW, my view of the planned ambush is that it was a spur of the moment
plan, decided on when AW learned that Richard hadn't brought a large number
of men with him. Had AW been certain Richard would only be accompanied by a
hundred or so men, there was no reason not to kill or capture Richard at
their first meeting in Northampton. Edward could have been, as he actually
was, safely parked at Stony Stratford with a couple of hundred men, while AW
with the remaining thousand or so "took care of business" in Northampton.
However, that scenario depended on knowing how many men Richard had with
him, something AW didn't discover until the actual meeting. Thus the plan
for an "ambush," presumably by "bandits." Not only would it remove Richard,
and Buckingham, but it would also provide a gloss of "plausible deniability"
if so desired: "I didn't kill Richard, those bandits did!"
Perhaps some of his later actions, such as the rebellion, might be better
explained by Buckingham having not only supported Richard as Protector from
the beginning, but because he provided some sort of information concerning
the Woodvilles' plans? Buckingham could reason that Richard owed his life
to Buckingham and feel aggrieved when he wasn't included in Richard's
governing inner-circle?
As for Morton, I'm still viewing him as being someone well aware of his own
abilities and willing to serve anyone who viewed his abilities similarly.
Whether that somebody was the Woodvilles, Richard or Henry Tudor really
didn't matter. What did was seeing Morton as he saw himself and, most
importantly, putting him in a position where he could employ those
abilities.
Doug
My apologies as well for taking so long in responding (apparently I get some
of the posts, but not all!).

Hilary wrote:
"Hi Doug, sorry to be so long replying; work called.
Kimbolton was the favourite home of Anne Neville, Dowager Duchess of
Buckingham and our Henry's grandmother. She died in 1480, so there is a
logic in him visiting, and there is also his association with Bokingham
College Cambridge and Croyland.
I was going to ask the same question as you, which was what AW could have
been doing in East Anglia? Visiting Gipping, visiting Walsingham? I
wondered if Marie knew more. And BTW whilst I was looking at some of this I
notice Edward restored Buck's dues as Earl of Northampton in the early
1470s. He made quite a lot of income from there so the choice of Northampton
was either a really strange co-incidence or something symbolic - i.e.
Buckingham hosting?
I find it hard to get my head round AW, he comes across as more image than
substance and rather vaporous. I don't remember whether it was you or Nico
who suggested that he was the 'ringleader'. I think he must have dreaded
this task, I would. Think, he has to meet Richard who has just lost his
lynchpin, his brother and his boss. Look how Clarence reacted when he was
bereaved. We know that Richard acted with all propriety, but he might not
have done so. So Buckingham would have been a useful backup. In fact it
gives one a tremendous admiration for Richard's sense of duty which carried
him through in the most dreadful of circumstances. As for Buckingham, I
agree with you, he might well have thought the Woodvilles were the path to
the future.
I don't know about Morton. I wonder if Marie knows more if she's still out
there?
Still catching up with the rest."

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

Nico, Apologies for not replying sooner, still having trouble receiving emails from anyone other than, apparently, Marie!?! From the itinerary Marie provided, it appears as if AW did everything but supervise his charge, doesn't it? Wouldn't part of his job include AW's keeping an eye on the Prince of Wales' household; its members, expenses, etc.? He doesn't seem to have done that, either, but it may be due to a lack of surviving records. What is interesting is that with AW tootling around Norfolk and Grey in London, Vaughan seems to have been the one directly concerned with Edward's upbringing. Strangely though, he's always listed as the last of the trio; perhaps snobbery is the cause? After all, he was only Sir Thomas... I think I've always tended to view Morton as an opportunist and I have to admit he doesn't seem to have done anything to change that view! Doug Nico wrote: Manager is a much better work for how I see AW's role too. He does come across as a dilettante whose instinct would be to take the path of least resistance. Personally, I think the conspiracy started in London with Dorset, EW and probably Richard Grey, but as senior male AW was pushed into 'managing' the Northampton end. Marie's post about his locations is very revealing. He certainly liked his East Anglian estates, and spent most of his time there or in London. Of all the major Woodvilles, he had the least to lose when EIV died, as he could have carried on as normal with a lifestyle he enjoyed. So, I see him as possibly a reluctant participant in this venture. I very much doubt he ever went to Ludlow after EIV died. In fact, during that Dymock paper's timeline, there is no record of him visiting Ludlow at all. Contrary to general belief, it is appears that his involvement in young Edward's life was minimal and they would have barely known each other . As for Morton, I also think he was an opportunist who would back who ever would advance him.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hilary wrote:
"Haven't overlooked this Doug. Still searching for Buckingham info. I agree
with Nico that AW was probably a very reluctant participator in all this;
but his sister loved giving orders and he was the senior male. And she had
sent her son to help :) :)"

Doug here:
The reaction to events, beginning with the death of Edward IV do seem to be
of an <i>ad hoc</i> nature, don't they? Sort of a scurrying around, trying
to manage unexpected events and deal with people with whom there'd
previously been little or no contact?

Hilary continued:
"Buckingham's 250 'ducal retinue' would be very useful to either side. It
would certainly do a lot to even the odds for Richard and make him much less
vulnerable, so it is tempting so see B using this opportunity to ensure that
Richard 'owed him one'. And one could understand why AW would then hesitate,
but too late because B had revealed the plot to Richard."

Doug here:
What do you make of the idea that the information Buckingham may have
provided to Richard wasn't about any planned ambush, but rather that Edward
had been accompanied from Wales by only five hundred or so men? Presuming
Buckingham came to Northampton from one of his estates along Watling Street,
he'd almost certainly have that information, but the decision about an
ambush would have been made by AW who, as far as we can tell, was already in
Northampton or its' vicinity.
Now, everything I've read has AW meeting Richard and telling him that Edward
is at Stony Stratford. Presuming, safely I think, that Northampton was the
agreed-upon meeting place for everyone; the question becomes: Why wasn't
Edward at Northampton? And just as important, what reason did AW give
Richard for Edward not being there? We don't have that, do we?
To succeed, an ambush requires that the person being ambushed not know about
it. Even the possibility there might be an ambush could cause the potential
victim to take steps to avoid it. Someone (Marie?) previously posted that
Northampton had been the site of Parliaments, treaty-signings and such and
was capable of accommodating quite a large number of people. Could the
"tip-off" for Richard have been AW giving "crowded conditions" in
Northampton as the reason for Edward being at Stony Stratford? If
Northampton had previously accommodated Parliaments, it could easily have
accommodated Edward's party of five hundred, Richard's party of two hundred
or so and Buckingham's two hundred fifty, with room for some of AW's as
well.
So, when Buckingham told Richard that Edward's escort was around five
hundred, Richard's suspicions were aroused. I've posted before that, if AW
was gathering large numbers of men in and around Grafton Regis, that
knowledge would almost certainly be available in Northampton. So, Richard
puts two and two together and, on the morning of 30 April, arrests AW and
Grey. And with the knowledge that their leaders were in chains, the men
who'd been designated to carry out the ambush - didn't.
I hope that makes sense!

Hilary continued:
"There's any interesting point in the Stafford book. In fact it's just a
throwaway remark but it says that Buckingham must have been so unpopular in
Wales that all he ended up with in his last days were Thomas Nandyke the
'necromancer' from Cambridge and our friend John Russhe. I found out a bit
more about the latter BTW. He was one of those listed as supporting Clarence
in 1469 (I think I told you that), but he was then pardoned and he turns up
again in the Stonor papers receiving a shipment of cutlery for the Stonors
in London (including a broken spoon). I don't think he was really a
merchant, more a 'dealer'. Like Thomas Hampton he was clearly in the Stonor
circle.
What is perhaps interesting on reflection is that both Nandyke and Russhe
weren't executed by Richard as aiding and abetting a traitor. Was Russhe,
like potentially one or both of the Wellesbournes, playing a double game in
watching B for the Woodvilles (or Richard)?"

Doug here:
Russhe rather sounds to me as if he may have been a sort of high-class
peddler;" not only dealing in whatever a potential customer may have wanted
but, more importantly, possibly traveling around a general "circuit."
Definitely an excellent way to gather, and disseminate, information.
Would Russhe have been considered a member of Buckingham's "affinity"? If
so, might conflicted loyalties have something to do with his not being
executed? Do we have any record of Russhe actually doing something to help
Buckingham in his rebellion?

Hilary concluded:
"I agree about Morton. I reckon he would work happily for anyone who gave
him a position. He followed the ascendant star - and had made one mistake
with MOA. Why B took Morton to Brecon is a mystery, unless he thought it so
remote that he'd have a job getting correspondence out of there?
Will look at your requests in para 1."

Doug here:
If Morton had been given into Buckingham's personal custody, that would
require Buckingham to place himself somewhere where he could keep a close,
24/7 watch over the Bishop. Which certainly indicates a fairly remote site
where the comings and goings of everyone could be closely monitored;
conditions Brecon would likely meet. Perhaps that's one of the
reasons,Buckingham was so easily seduced by Morton? Custody of Morton could
be, literally, viewed as being banished from Court and Morton played on that
theme? Richard had "banished" Buckingham, fearing his capabilities and
influence?
Don't put yourself out over those questions in that paragraph! I was just
wondering if <i>we</i> had better information than that produced by five
centuries of "historians.*"
Doug
*Who does recognize we might have a few more sources available, but still...

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

Book digitized by Google from the library of the New York Public Library and uploaded to the Internet Archive by...

Hilary wrote:

"AW is just the sort to 'cash in' on Wykehamist supporters;"

Carol responds:

I'm probably missing something obvious here, but what are Wykehamist supporters and why would AW be likely to cash in on them?

Doug hope you get this but who knows when? I did a bit more on Buckingham College. It became Magdalene College Cambridge in 1549 but the Buckingham bit is still on their website. They say it was originally called Buckingham College because Duke Humphrey and 'our' Duke Henry invested a large amount of money in it - but nobody has ever traced the specifics of that money.
It was set up to benefit the monks of Croyland and administered by their abbot. Perhaps they were 'sponsoring' Croyland? But it does definitely give Buckingham a sponsored base in East Anglia as well as Kimbolton.
There are two themes which run through th 1483 rebellions (and therefore this if you accept them to be linked with the Woodvilles). The first is the judiciary; nearly all our rebels link back to a significant Judge. The second is Wykehamism - and Henry VI and Lancaster were key to this - think King's College Cambridge, Eton etc. Did the Woodvilles woo old Lancastrians with a Wykehamist promise? Interesting that MB established her own College (St John's Cambridge) and HT finished the King's College chapel - with Tudor roses of course. H

On Saturday, 12 May 2018, 15:31:49 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.

Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:

1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.

2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.

If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.

Marie

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.

Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:

1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.

2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.

If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.

Marie

It all makes perfect sense, doesn't it? We just need to pinpoint Buckingham if we ever can.
How did Richard Haute creep into all this - some 'histories' have him being executed at Pontefract too (ah I see it's More?)? I know there were two BTW.
Also, although two Hautes (Richard and William) were involved in the October rebellions, Richard rewarded James Haute (husband of Katherine)with their confiscated property of Ightham Mote in March 1484. I'm interested because Ightham passed to one Sir Richard Clement, a great buddy of HT in the early sixteenth century. He was married to both Catesby's sister Anne and Anne Barley, daughter of William Barley of Perkin Warbeck fame. Like John Clement, of Thomas More fame, he seems to come out of nowhere and rise very high very fast.
Nice to hear from you. H
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 15:43:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.

Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:

1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.

2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.

If I had been Rivers, and somewhere r ound the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.

Marie

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Hilary,
To be honest, most of the people I met while at work were either from the military or local people who would be classified as middle-class, both economically and socially. My local pub was definitely working-class with a tinge of middle-class, although there was one frequenter who, for a year or so, was flying to Switzerland off-and-on to work! Apparently he was a very skilled computer programmer! My advancement was via the U.S. military so, other than any input from someone who might have been in the Old Boys Club, I never had much to do with em. Don't know if I really missed anything.
To a certain extent, I can see where the original idea might have made sense; if one had gone to University, then the odds were one had acquired the basic knowledge needed to fill, at least, middle-level posts. Experience and the gaining of further knowledge would then equip a person for advancement. While clerks might only need the ability to read and write, for any other position a well-founded knowledge of law, national and international (possibly even a bit of canon law, too?) was absolutely essential. There were only two places to learn the former, the Inns of Court and Oxford or Cambridge; and the Inns tended to produce practitioners, rather than originators. For the latter there was only Oxford or Cambridge (or a foreign university, but I mean really  foreign?).
FWIW, and as best I can tell, while those graduating from University in our period actually learned something, as the centuries wore on, attending University too often simply became something one did because one's parents were rich enough to afford the costs. So, in order to staff the national government at its' upper levels, one had to rely either on experience, which took time to acquire, or else on some form of vetting  which led back to those one knew at Eton, Winchester or while attending University. Seemingly, what then happened, as it often does, was that simply having attended one of those institutions equated to having passed the modern-day Civil Service Exams. And, once in, barring the commission of treason, one was set for life. After all, I could hardly fire someone in the morning only to meet them later that day at dinner, now could I?
And, of course, Eton and Winchester are still boys only schools, while Oxford and Cambridge only started granting degrees to women in 1920. However, it does appear that as a larger proportion of those in government, whether elected or via the Civil Service, come from sources other than those institutions, it's becoming more and more difficult to justify the idea of an Old Boys Club; which likely also means those already in it will become even more determined to maintain it  and the perquisites it affords them.
The more I find out about AW, the more I really believe he should have stayed out of politics (while admitting it would have been difficult in that day and age and considering his familial relationships).
Doug
Suet pudding? Pardon me, but I have to go take a pill for my cholesterol...
Hilary wrote:
Doug surely if you lived here you bumped into the 'old boys club'? :) :) Old girls can never break into it which is why women PMs meet with such hostility. It's this belief - which has come down from the Wykehamist colleges, that you are born to lead, to rule etc and it's all rather easy. It also manifests itself in indulgence in suet puddings (like they had at their boarding schools) and strange rituals which I won't go into here :) :)
And yes, I'm sure AW would have wanted to be at the leading edge of education/refinement of his day. And of course you could rely on your buddies for help....... H

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

Yes I agree, there's something not right is there? How much of Perkin Warbeck's writing do we have? I doubt ROS would have been better educated than his brother who followed a very strict regime. In fact if you look at EOY's signature (I know she was a woman) it's as bad or worse than Edward's. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:21:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

There are a few samples of Perkin's writing in Ann Wroe's book. The best is probably the letter to Isabella (1493), which is in the British Library collection. In the link you can find it 3 lines down. In one chapter, she discussed his handwriting and thought that he was more likely to have had a clerical education rather than a traditionally royal one, and made some comparisons to Anthony Woodville. I can't remember offhand exactly what she said, but I think it may have had something to do with precision with grammar and form. As you can see, his handwriting was tidier than Edwards.
As for Hicks, if I remember rightly, he was quite good on the pre 1483 sections, but became quite annoying in the later chapters where I recall him going on about 'wicked uncles.'
Nico

https://imagesonline.bl.uk/en/asset/show_zoom_window_popup.html?asset=22900&location=grid&asset_list=22880,22881,22882,22883,22884,22885,22886,22887,22888,228 On Friday, 18 May 2018, 09:19:19 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes I agree, there's something not right is there? How much of Perkin Warbeck's writing do we have? I doubt ROS would have been better educated than his brother who followed a very strict regime. In fact if you look at EOY's signature (I know she was a woman) it's as bad or worse than Edward's. H
On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:21:28 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

When I was looking into the Edward V becoming Erasmus theory, I compared their signatures for the possibility that EV's signature may have been an early version of Erasmus' later signature, but found no similarities. I had similar thoughts about Edward V's signature, which doesn't flow very naturally and couldn't have been written in one stroke of the pen. I was surprised that he hadn't had more practice and wonder what a graphologist would make of it.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward5.htm
Nico



On Thursday, 17 May 2018, 13:02:09 GMT+1, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
I found a copy of Hick's Edward V for the princely sum of 8p on Amazon, so I'll review what it says about his early life. From what I remember, Edward IV had a set of fairly strict rules and a timetable for him to follow, so I assume that Vaughan would have supervised this. If there were serious problems, I believe it said they were to be referred to Anthony Woodville, Richard Grey or EIV himself, but what use they would be if they were absentee is hard to say. I don't know how they would have dealt with correspondence, but Vaughan probably would have read all of it, even from family members especially when EV was young. As for companions, he would need boys of his own age to learn things like jousting, hunting and sword fighting skills who would have been drawn from the local nobility or gentry. One thing that stood out for me was that Hicks described life at Ludlow as being very male dominant, with women mostly being domestic servants. Thomas Vaughan was married, but it isn't clear if his wife or the wives of any senior retainers spent much time there. This would having been a very different upbringing to Richard of Shrewsbury, who was brought up around his mother, lots of sisters and a more pampered environment at the Court. I often wonder how they would have got on and whether they had anything in common when they were in the Tower.
Doug wrote: For members of the Vaughan family to support the October Rebellion could be viewed as supporting the proposition that the original aim of the rebellion to return Edward V to the throne and consisted of people who may have felt they'd been side-tracked by the new king (Richard). Do you know if the Vaughans who supported HT, gave him their support before Bosworth or after?
The Vaughans are a complex group, who generally had a Yorkist affiliation, especially the Vaughans of Tretower who supported Richard during the rebellion. Thomas Vaughan was from the Monmouth branch and had a distinguished career under Edward IV, before becoming chamberlain to Edward V. There has been some confusion about his children and the sons that are often said to be his are most likely illegitmate or nephews or cousins, as his 'sole heir' is recorded as his daughter Ann who was married to Sir John Wogan of Wiston, a major Henry Tudor supporter, and whose son was a Gentleman Usher to Henry VIII. However, he had a number of step-children from his wife, Eleanor Arundel's first marriage to Sir Thomas Browne (died 1460), including Sir George Browne who supported Buckingham's rebellion and had connections to Kent and the Woodvilles. His son married a sister of the Sir Edward Guildford that Leslau thought was Edward V's alter ego, and their grandson was Guildford Dudley who married Lady Jane Grey. Also, on the topic of John Clement and the painting, Sir John Wogan's mother was Maud Clement from the Cardiganshire Clements. I am now wondering whether Leslau was right after all and Edward V was 'reassigned' through Sir Thomas Vaughan's relatives.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.history.british/6NQb7zHz

http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-VAUG-THO-1483.html








On Wednesday, 16 May 2018, 11:34:45 GMT+1, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Mary you've reminded me of one other thing.
When you look at the boy Edward's signature it's poor isn't it, certainly nothing like Uncle Richard's beautiful hand? Now this is a boy who has been tutored for years in preparation for becoming king. I know I often draw parallels with Edward VI, but the two boys Had a very similar upbringing; unlike Edward IV, Richard or even HT they were trained to be king from birth. Yet compare the 12 year old Edward's hand with that of 9 year old Edward VI (who was writing copiously by then) and you do begin to wonder whether there was indeed something not quite right with Edward and that was why he was kept out of the public eye for so long? It might also explain why the Council were so ready/relieved with the 'excuse' to take on Richard? H
On Tuesday, 15 May 2018, 16:28:09 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug and Nico thank you for your last posts. Why have we not thought about this previously? Of course Edward would be suffering from being cut off from his family, however, we have always been told that nice , cultured Uncle Anthony was looking after him and now thanks to Marie we know that Uncle Anthony was hardly ever in Ludlow. He would have been attached to Thomas Vaughan and when he was arrested it would surely have affected Edward. Do we know whether or not he had some young companions at Ludlow? If not life must have been quite boring. While we know that Edward had Edmund when he lived at Ludlow and Richard had Francis Lovell and other companions we seem to know very little about young Edward's life at Ludlow.

Marie wrote:

Sorry, back to Northampton for me, I'm afraid.

Just to wrap up, I think the understanding that Rivers was almost certainly in the north Norfolk area when Edward died makes sense of a couple of things:

1) Why Sir Thomas Vaughan was condemned for treason as well the Queen's brother and son. The three condemned men, Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, were the leaders of the three separate contingents converging from Norfolk, Ludlow and London respectively.

2) Why King's Lynn is the only town whose extant records contain a letter from Edward V announcing his father's death. King's Lynn was, essentially, Rivers' town and if AW was either in King's Lynn or within a short day's ride of it at the time, the messenger to the town could also have been carrying a personal message for him.

If I had been Rivers, and somewhere round the Wash when I heard about Edward IV's death, I would definitely not have bothered riding to Ludlow to join the King there. Given that the Woodville side wanted as large an escort with the King as possible when he entered London, Rivers would have been much better spending the time mobilising his own people in the East Midlands and leaving Vaughan, as his deputy, to do the same in Shropshire and the Marches.

Contd. . . .

Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?

Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings.

Marie,

A couple of things popped up when I read your reply. The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?

I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?

In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?

When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility.

I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?

He apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?

Doug

Who's left your post (including my posts to which you responded) below in its' entirety.

Marie wrote:

Contd. . . .

Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?

Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings.

Marie,

A couple of things popped up when I read your reply. The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?

I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?

In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?

When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility.

I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?

He apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?

Doug

Who's left your post (including my posts to which you responded) below in its' entirety.

Marie wrote:

Contd. . . .

Doug wrote:

A thought that also occurred to me concerned the letter Richard sent to York on, I believe, 10 June 1483. I've always presumed the letter was the result of Richard having discovered some sort of separately-devised plot by Hastings' to kill him. Could I be mistaken (as if that's something new!)? Could Hastings' planned actions in the Tower on that day have simply been a follow-on to the original Woodville plans? If I'm not mistaken, Mary Stuart of Scotland was likely involved in several plots against her cousin before enough evidence to warrant an execution was obtained. Perhaps the same in the this case?

Marie replies:

I think so. Both because it was after Friday 13th that the Council agreed to proceed against Rivers & Co, and because I don't think the Queen would have thrown in the towel, either (assuming there had been a plot) after one setback, or (assuming the Woodvilles were innocent) immediately Richard had grabbed her son. She refused to come out of sanctuary during May despite being given sworn assurances by Richard and the Council. Dorset, on the other hand, slipped sanctuary and disappeared, presumably with some purpose in mind. So, yes, I believe the Woodvilles would have moved on to Plan B, or devised a Plan B if they hadn't had one. Also, even leaving aside More's claims about witchcraft accusations, remember that letter begs for help against 'the quene, her blode. adherentes and affinitie'.

It wasn't, on 10 June at least, entirely, or even mainly, about Hastings..

Just to say, if anyone is interested, the correspondence Hastings had with Louis and his ministers during that crisis year of 1477 has recently been published by the RIII & Yorkist History Trust. Hastings copied all the letters he sent to the French into a notebook.

I think it helps make Hastings come alive more as an individual, particularly the bit where he forces Louis' messenger to personally write down the rather explosive verbal message from Louis which he had given Hastings to pass on to King Edward, then sign it and date it; and refused to give it back to the messenger when said messenger had second thoughts.

http://www.richardiiiandyht.org.uk/wordpress/?page_id=506

Hi Doug,

Re your questions:

1) "The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?"

The text of the letter to York, plus the gist of the messenger's verbal 'credence', were written into the council's house book. fortunately, I copied the text of it up years ago, so here is a copy and paste:

"The Duce of Glocestre, broder and uncle of kynges, protectour, defender, gret chamberleyn, constabill and admirall of England

Right trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well, and as ye love the wele of us and the wele and surtie of your own selff, we hertely pray you to come unto us to London in all the diligence ye can possible, aftir the sight herof, with as mony as ye can make defensibly arraied, there to eide and assiste us ayanst the quene, her blode adherentes and affinitie, which have entended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly distroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme, and as it is now openly knowen by their subtile and dampnabill wais forcasted the same, and also the finall distruccion and disheryson of you and all odir inheritourz and men of haner, as weile of the north parties as odir countries that belongen to us, as our trusty servant this berer shall mor at large shew you, to whom we pray you geve credence, and as evyr we may do for you in tym commyng faille not but hast you to us hidir. Yovyn under our signet at London the xth day of Juyn.

To our right trusty and welbelovyd John Newton, mair of York and his bredir and the communs of the same and every of thame.

The credence of the which lettre is that such felichip as the citie may make defensably arraid as wele of hors as of ffute, be one Wendynsday at evyn next cummyng at Powmfret, their attendyng apon my lord of Northumberland and so to go up to London thar to attend upon my said lordes gud grace"

In addition, by an even stranger chance the text of the letter Richard wrote to Lord Neville of Raby the next day also survived to find its way into the Paston Letters. According to my notes, the letter was found at Raby Castle after a rebellion and was copied into an antiquarian MS which was later owned by the Blackett family of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This was in turn copied for Fenn, the Paston Letters' original editor, by the then president of the Society of Antiquaries. It goes as follows:-

"My Lorde Nevyll, I recommaunde me to you as hartely as I can; and as ever ye love me, and your awne weale and securty and this Realme, that ye come to me with that ye may make, defensably arrayde, in all the hast that ys possyble; and that ye give credence to . . . . . Richarde Ratclyff, thys beerrer, whom I nowe do sende to you, enstructed with all my mynde and entent.

And, my lord, do me nowe gode servyce, as ye have always befor don, and I trust nowe so to remember you as shalbe the makyng of you and yours. And God sende you goode fortunes.

Wrytten att London, xj. day of Jun, with the hande of your hertely lovyng cousyn and master,

R. Gloucester.

2) "I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?"

Doesn't really matter. Lieutenant, of course, means something like deputy. He was the King's lieutenant general in Calais and its marches, and also captain of the town. The terms tend to get used interchangeably.

3) "In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?"

Not my own discovery, in that the Dymmok Papers have been looked at before, most notably by Ives, who wrote a paper based on the information in them which included the information about the retracted accusation. But Ives was chiefly interested in Andrew Dymmok and his career so didn't dwell all that much on what the Papers reveal about Rivers' lifestyle, and so maybe less has been made of this quarrel than it merits. When you see the multiple copies first hand it really does hit home what a nasty relationship the two men had with each other.

I imagine Lynda Pidgeon will also have used the Dymmok Papers for her forthcoming book on the Woodvilles, but everyone looks at a set of documents for slightly different reasons, and mines them for different information. I very quickly ordered them up and took hasty photos with a hand-held camera once at the end of a session at the National Archives.

Some of my copies are a bit blurred, and many of the originals are faded, smudgy and torn, so there was a limit to the information I could glean from them, but the dating clauses of most of Rivers' letters proved to be quite legible, and I like making timelines of people's movements - you can't know who might have done what till you know where they were. So as far as I'm aware, although people have picked up from Ives Rivers' being in Kings' Lynn in January and early March 1483, I don't believe anyone has previously used the original papers to determine Rivers' movements throughout the period covered, but that may well be just because there's not been a proper modern biography of Rivers until now. It's not until you look at the collection in toto that it becomes clear just how unlikely it is that Rivers would have been in Ludlow when Edward IV died.

4) "When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility."

Yes, I meant that Buckingham could have fabricated evidence against Hastings in order to bring him down, using Catesby, who was supposedly the informant. Both Mancini and Rous indicate that Buckingham was very involved in Hastings' despatch - Mancini has Buckingham's men cut him down, and Rous has Buckingham as the persuader behind Hastings' summary execution. Or, of course, Catesby, as a midlands landowner, may have seen a chance for his own advancement in Hastings' downfall, and so made up evidence on his own account of which Buck. simply made enthusiastic use. Or Hastings may genuinely have been won over by the Woodville side, either by promises of better career prospects or through worries about what might otherwise lie in store for Edward IV's children. We'll almost certainly never know.

5) "I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?"

I don't see Margaret Beaufort as the originator, as the way I see it the Woodvilles were already in there, anxious to bring Richard down and restore their own positions. There was, in that sense, nothing for MB to originate. Also, no suspicion seems to have fallen on her at this time, and she was simultaneously negotiating with Richard. What is quite possible, I think, is that she was cleverly playing both sides so that whichever came out on top would be grateful for her support.

6) Morton "apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?"

I'm not sure about Morton. I see no reason to suppose his career couldn't have continued successfully under Richard. Perhaps Richard didn't like him, but we just don't have the evidence. He's a clever and intriguing individual, and ripe for a proper biography.

Re your questions:

1) "The first concerns the dating, and content, of Richard's letter to York. Are we working with the actual letter itself, a copy or a summary? I presume it's the last, but don't really know. I do know that some of the contents referred to matters at York and seem to recall that the request for help was at the end. I also presume the rest of the contents, again presuming we have a copy of the entire letter, have been gone over very, very carefully for anything of interest. Is it included in some volume of relevant letters, legislation and the like?"

The text of the letter to York, plus the gist of the messenger's verbal 'credence', were written into the council's house book. fortunately, I copied the text of it up years ago, so here is a copy and paste:

"The Duce of Glocestre, broder and uncle of kynges, protectour, defender, gret chamberleyn, constabill and admirall of England

Right trusty and welbelovyd we grete you well, and as ye love the wele of us and the wele and surtie of your own selff, we hertely pray you to come unto us to London in all the diligence ye can possible, aftir the sight herof, with as mony as ye can make defensibly arraied, there to eide and assiste us ayanst the quene, her blode adherentes and affinitie, which have entended and daily doth intend to murder and utterly distroy us and our cousyn the duc of Bukkyngham and the old royall blode of this realme, and as it is now openly knowen by their subtile and dampnabill wais forcasted the same, and also the finall distruccion and disheryson of you and all odir inheritourz and men of haner, as weile of the north parties as odir countries that belongen to us, as our trusty servant this berer shall mor at large shew you, to whom we pray you geve credence, and as evyr we may do for you in tym commyng faille not but hast you to us hidir. Yovyn under our signet at London the xth day of Juyn.

To our right trusty and welbelovyd John Newton, mair of York and his bredir and the communs of the same and every of thame.

The credence of the which lettre is that such felichip as the citie may make defensably arraid as wele of hors as of ffute, be one Wendynsday at evyn next cummyng at Powmfret, their attendyng apon my lord of Northumberland and so to go up to London thar to attend upon my said lordes gud grace"

In addition, by an even stranger chance the text of the letter Richard wrote to Lord Neville of Raby the next day also survived to find its way into the Paston Letters. According to my notes, the letter was found at Raby Castle after a rebellion and was copied into an antiquarian MS which was later owned by the Blackett family of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. This was in turn copied for Fenn, the Paston Letters' original editor, by the then president of the Society of Antiquaries. It goes as follows:-

"My Lorde Nevyll, I recommaunde me to you as hartely as I can; and as ever ye love me, and your awne weale and securty and this Realme, that ye come to me with that ye may make, defensably arrayde, in all the hast that ys possyble; and that ye give credence to . . . . . Richarde Ratclyff, thys beerrer, whom I nowe do sende to you, enstructed with all my mynde and entent.

And, my lord, do me nowe gode servyce, as ye have always befor don, and I trust nowe so to remember you as shalbe the makyng of you and yours. And God sende you goode fortunes.

Wrytten att London, xj. day of Jun, with the hande of your hertely lovyng cousyn and master,

R. Gloucester.

2) "I got the information about Hastings being Edward IV's Chamberlain from the Wikipedia on him and, of course, there are no references as to where that bit of information came from! FWIW, the article also has Hastings as the Master of the Mint and Chamberlain of the Exchequer, as well as Lieutenant of Calais, although I don't think whether he was designated Captain or Lieutenant matters. Or does it?"

Doesn't really matter. Lieutenant, of course, means something like deputy. He was the King's lieutenant general in Calais and its marches, and also captain of the town. The terms tend to get used interchangeably.

3) "In regards to the contents of the Dymmok Papers, concerning Hastings and Rivers, is that information well-known to have been included in historical books written about this era? Or was it a recent, perhaps even your own, discovery? While it provides a much more understandable reason for Hastings to oppose any Woodville machinations after Edward IV's death, at also puts an obstacle between their later working together. However, any such communications between Hastings and Rivers would just be another nail in the latter's coffin, wouldn't it?"

Not my own discovery, in that the Dymmok Papers have been looked at before, most notably by Ives, who wrote a paper based on the information in them which included the information about the retracted accusation. But Ives was chiefly interested in Andrew Dymmok and his career so didn't dwell all that much on what the Papers reveal about Rivers' lifestyle, and so maybe less has been made of this quarrel than it merits. When you see the multiple copies first hand it really does hit home what a nasty relationship the two men had with each other.

I imagine Lynda Pidgeon will also have used the Dymmok Papers for her forthcoming book on the Woodvilles, but everyone looks at a set of documents for slightly different reasons, and mines them for different information. I very quickly ordered them up and took hasty photos with a hand-held camera once at the end of a session at the National Archives.

Some of my copies are a bit blurred, and many of the originals are faded, smudgy and torn, so there was a limit to the information I could glean from them, but the dating clauses of most of Rivers' letters proved to be quite legible, and I like making timelines of people's movements - you can't know who might have done what till you know where they were. So as far as I'm aware, although people have picked up from Ives Rivers' being in Kings' Lynn in January and early March 1483, I don't believe anyone has previously used the original papers to determine Rivers' movements throughout the period covered, but that may well be just because there's not been a proper modern biography of Rivers until now. It's not until you look at the collection in toto that it becomes clear just how unlikely it is that Rivers would have been in Ludlow when Edward IV died.

4) "When you wrote But it is also possible that Buckingham interfered with the evidence..., I am correct in taking that to mean the evidence that Hastings was part of a plot against Richard, aren't I? To be honest, I hadn't ever considered that possibility."

Yes, I meant that Buckingham could have fabricated evidence against Hastings in order to bring him down, using Catesby, who was supposedly the informant. Both Mancini and Rous indicate that Buckingham was very involved in Hastings' despatch - Mancini has Buckingham's men cut him down, and Rous has Buckingham as the persuader behind Hastings' summary execution. Or, of course, Catesby, as a midlands landowner, may have seen a chance for his own advancement in Hastings' downfall, and so made up evidence on his own account of which Buck. simply made enthusiastic use. Or Hastings may genuinely have been won over by the Woodville side, either by promises of better career prospects or through worries about what might otherwise lie in store for Edward IV's children. We'll almost certainly never know.

5) "I found the information about the witness at 1486 enquiry very interesting! If Morton and Rotherham were discussing that topic in 1483, might it not have been part of Elizabeth Woodville's attempt to gain Margaret Beaufort's assistance? And, possibly, through her, her husband's? It could also fit if Margaret Beaufort was the originator, couldn't it?"

I don't see Margaret Beaufort as the originator, as the way I see it the Woodvilles were already in there, anxious to bring Richard down and restore their own positions. There was, in that sense, nothing for MB to originate. Also, no suspicion seems to have fallen on her at this time, and she was simultaneously negotiating with Richard. What is quite possible, I think, is that she was cleverly playing both sides so that whichever came out on top would be grateful for her support.

6) Morton "apparently tried for that under Edward V, first in May/June 1483 and then again with Buckingham later in the year, and only when those two attempts failed did he turn to the last remaining possibility  Henry Tudor. To be frank, my personal view is that Morton would have been happy regardless of who was on the throne, just as long as the good Bishop held a position he felt worthy of him. While it is possible that Morton's aim all along was to get the throne for Henry, I wonder how much of that idea is the result of our knowing the outcome?"

I'm not sure about Morton. I see no reason to suppose his career couldn't have continued successfully under Richard. Perhaps Richard didn't like him, but we just don't have the evidence. He's a clever and intriguing individual, and ripe for a proper biography.

The Council on 8 June was attended by Richard/ Williamson seems to have been relying on Halsted (?) who assumed Richard wasn't there because she noticed he issued a few letters that day and assumed he couldn't have done both. In fact, the source is a letter from Simon Stallworthe to Sir W. Stonor, and it says:

"My Lord Protector, my Lord Buckingham, with all other lords as well temporal as spiritual, were at Westminster in the Council Chamber from 10am to 2pm , but there was none that spoke with the Queen."

There's no evidence that the precontract was revealed to the lords at that meeting, although it's often said that it was. Stallworthe thought the meeting had to do with plans for the coronation. We don't know when the precontract claim surfaced, and I wish historians would be honest about it. Place it wrongly and the whole interpretation of events is skewed.

It's possible that the Queen learned of something (the precontract?) discussed at that meeting which caused her to start plotting against Richard again, but if so then Richard found out about it pretty damned quick. My own feeling is that she had refused to come out of sanctuary, and Sir Edward and Dorset had continued in opposition to Richard, because one setback at Northampton was not the end of it for her and never had been. The London journal records that on 23 May "was read out the oath lately made to our lord King by Richard Duke of Gloucester, Protector of England, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Archbishop of York, Henry Duke of Buckingham and the lords. Also an oath that the said lords would make to the Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, now being in the Sanctuary of St. Peter, Westminster, if that lady would relinquish that place." Elizabeth took no notice, and stayed in sanctuary. She can only have done so because she had alternative plans. The only question was how long it would take her and her family to bring Plan B to fruition. That's why I say that Margaret Beaufort cannot have been the instigator of the June plot.

"My Lord Protector, my Lord Buckingham, with all other lords as well temporal as spiritual, were at Westminster in the Council Chamber from 10am to 2pm , but there was none that spoke with the Queen."

There's no evidence that the precontract was revealed to the lords at that meeting, although it's often said that it was. Stallworthe thought the meeting had to do with plans for the coronation. We don't know when the precontract claim surfaced, and I wish historians would be honest about it. Place it wrongly and the whole interpretation of events is skewed.

It's possible that the Queen learned of something (the precontract?) discussed at that meeting which caused her to start plotting against Richard again, but if so then Richard found out about it pretty damned quick. My own feeling is that she had refused to come out of sanctuary, and Sir Edward and Dorset had continued in opposition to Richard, because one setback at Northampton was not the end of it for her and never had been. The London journal records that on 23 May "was read out the oath lately made to our lord King by Richard Duke of Gloucester, Protector of England, Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Archbishop of York, Henry Duke of Buckingham and the lords. Also an oath that the said lords would make to the Lady Elizabeth, Queen of England, now being in the Sanctuary of St. Peter, Westminster, if that lady would relinquish that place." Elizabeth took no notice, and stayed in sanctuary. She can only have done so because she had alternative plans. The only question was how long it would take her and her family to bring Plan B to fruition. That's why I say that Margaret Beaufort cannot have been the instigator of the June plot.

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