Richard III Research and Discussion Archive

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting.

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483.

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting. 

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483. 

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

Oliver King is also listed as Register of the Order of the Garter, whose responsibilities included entering accounts of the chapters held in the Black Book. One of the gap's in the records of chapters includes Richard's reign & the first couple of years of HT's. This is, of course, precisely the period when it would be useful to know whether a decision was ever made concerning the status of Edward's sons. There were 3 ways of leaving the Order: (1) death, in which case on receipt of confirmation, a certain number of masses dictated by the Companion's noble rank, should have been said; as well as a record of the offering of their achievements to St George's in a mass after the Feast of St George's (2) degradation - the regulations of the Order at that time provided no grounds that would seem to require this or (3) voluntary surrender. Interestingly although there is contradictory evidence about who was assigned to which stalls during this time period, the stalls of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's son), the Prince's stall, and the Earl of Essex's appear to have not been re-assigned during King Richard's reign.
A J



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:53 AM hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting.

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483.

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

Thanks Hilary for the info on Oliver King. He certainly does need some more research. Is the reason for Richard firing him known? According to Rosemary Horrox, he was replaced by Kendale after the unrest in June. If he was bitter about that, he may have been an easy target for MB, especially with his Lancastrian family links through Nedham to Humphrey of Gloucester and Eleanor Cobham. He certainly did become a loyal HT supporter. When he restored Bath Abbey he claimed that he had a dream where angels told him 'let an Olive establish the crown, and let a King restore the Church,' meaning HT. As you say, he may have had considerable sensitive information from being Edward IV's French secretary. Interesting too about the links to London trade and Kent with both his and Thomas Beaumont's families. Some of those families really were powerful at the time, and both King and Beaumont were well placed to gather information. I'll keep looking.
Nico
On Wednesday, 27 February 2019, 14:04:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Oliver King is also listed as Register of the Order of the Garter, whose responsibilities included entering accounts of the chapters held in the Black Book. One of the gap's in the records of chapters includes Richard's reign & the first couple of years of HT's. This is, of course, precisely the period when it would be useful to know whether a decision was ever made concerning the status of Edward's sons. There were 3 ways of leaving the Order: (1) death, in which case on receipt of confirmation, a certain number of masses dictated by the Companion's noble rank, should have been said; as well as a record of the offering of their achievements to St George's in a mass after the Feast of St George's (2) degradation - the regulations of the Order at that time provided no grounds that would seem to require this or (3) voluntary surrender. Interestingly although there is contradictory evidence about who was assigned to which stalls during this time period, the stalls of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's son), the Prince's stall, and the Earl of Essex's appear to have not been re-assigned during King Richard's reign.
A J



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:53 AM hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting.

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483.

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

Oliver King is also listed as Register of the Order of the Garter, whose responsibilities included entering accounts of the chapters held in the Black Book. One of the gap's in the records of chapters includes Richard's reign & the first couple of years of HT's. This is, of course, precisely the period when it would be useful to know whether a decision was ever made concerning the status of Edward's sons. There were 3 ways of leaving the Order: (1) death, in which case on receipt of confirmation, a certain number of masses dictated by the Companion's noble rank, should have been said; as well as a record of the offering of their achievements to St George's in a mass after the Feast of St George's (2) degradation - the regulations of the Order at that time provided no grounds that would seem to require this or (3) voluntary surrender. Interestingly although there is contradictory evidence about who was assigned to which stalls during this time period, the stalls of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's son), the Prince's stall, and the Earl of Essex's appear to have not been re-assigned during King Richard's reign.
A J



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:53 AM hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting.

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483.

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

Short title: King v Goule.

Plaintiffs: Oliver King, clerk.

Defendants: Richard Goule, of London, mercer, and Elizabeth Hill, widow, and others, executors of Thomas Hill, alderman of London.

Subject: Embezzlement of plate during complainant's imprisonment in the Tower by Richard, late duke of Gloucester.

London.

4 documents

I think we need to Nico - he could be the original Cambridge spy. I notice he was sent to Brittany in 1473? Also of course Thomas Vaughan ties in with all this through his London connections and Philip Malpas who was John Beaumont's son in law. I reckon we've all neglected London for far too long. H
On Thursday, 28 February 2019, 09:40:27 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Thanks Hilary for the info on Oliver King. He certainly does need some more research. Is the reason for Richard firing him known? According to Rosemary Horrox, he was replaced by Kendale after the unrest in June. If he was bitter about that, he may have been an easy target for MB, especially with his Lancastrian family links through Nedham to Humphrey of Gloucester and Eleanor Cobham. He certainly did become a loyal HT supporter. When he restored Bath Abbey he claimed that he had a dream where angels told him 'let an Olive establish the crown, and let a King restore the Church,' meaning HT. As you say, he may have had considerable sensitive information from being Edward IV's French secretary. Interesting too about the links to London trade and Kent with both his and Thomas Beaumont's families. Some of those families really were powerful at the time, and both King and Beaumont were well placed to gather information. I'll keep looking.
Nico
On Wednesday, 27 February 2019, 14:04:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

Oliver King is also listed as Register of the Order of the Garter, whose responsibilities included entering accounts of the chapters held in the Black Book. One of the gap's in the records of chapters includes Richard's reign & the first couple of years of HT's. This is, of course, precisely the period when it would be useful to know whether a decision was ever made concerning the status of Edward's sons. There were 3 ways of leaving the Order: (1) death, in which case on receipt of confirmation, a certain number of masses dictated by the Companion's noble rank, should have been said; as well as a record of the offering of their achievements to St George's in a mass after the Feast of St George's (2) degradation - the regulations of the Order at that time provided no grounds that would seem to require this or (3) voluntary surrender. Interestingly although there is contradictory evidence about who was assigned to which stalls during this time period, the stalls of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's son), the Prince's stall, and the Earl of Essex's appear to have not been re-assigned during King Richard's reign.
A J



On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:53 AM hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I've done a bit of preliminary research on Oliver King which, as usual, turns out to be quite interesting.

King was, you recall, one of Edward's secretaries (in the Gallic tongue) from 1480 and had been undertaking work for Edward since 1473. He was therefore in a unique position to know a lot of things that others wouldn't, and no doubt had several communications with the French. Has was also, I recall, arrested for a short time after the fall of Hastings - certainly he was sacked after that? He was one of HT's few friends after he became King and undertook surveillance for him concerning Perkin Warbeck as we know from the King's own letter. According to Wiki he believed HT was chosen by god ...... Records about him, considering his position with Edward, are surprisingly sparse.

King was born in London about 1432, one of the sons of John King (alias Beket), a tailor. We know this because when his father died in the mid 1440s, the Drapers' Guild undertook to look after the children and their mother, Alice (or Johanna as she appears in that record) married the Yeoman Mercer and Sheriff Richard Nedham, to whom I will return.

John King was no ordinary tailor. After his death his widow and her new husband and other executors chased debts owing to him. They were considerable amounts of money, including payment for one which involved, amongst other things, 38 gowns. He appears in at least a couple of deeds with the later bishop Adam Moleyns (who you'll recall sponsored Thomas Vaughan) and with Sir Thomas Urswick, whose name might be familiar as he was the uncle of a certain Christopher Urswick, gofer for MB, who was attainted for such in 1483.

In addition to this his daughter married Robert Cosyn, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe 1466/70 who was the father of William Cosyn, executor of Thomas Beaumont and Dean of Wells. Thomas Beaumont was of course the brother-in-law of Edward Brampton.

Richard Nedham or Nedeham, Oliver King's stepfather, was no ordinary mercer either. In 1450 he was convicted with a number of others of high treason as a servant of Humphrey Duke of Gloucester. He was pardoned on the gallows by Henry VI. It was cited that he was particularly close to Eleanor Cobham, Duke Hummphrey's convicted wife. Nedham also came from Kent - Greenwich. I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Duke Humphrey but from the bit of research I did I was able to ascertain that he was a particular patron of the Drapers Guild and that he actually worked with them very closely.

So is it possible that at some stage Oliver was recruited by the MB network? He would be a marvellous recruit. King vanishes from records after Richard sacks him in June 1483 and he is replaced by John Kendale. But how many contacts had he been able to build up in the previous years and how much information was he still passing to the French? Needs a lot more work. H

Hilary wrote:

Founders · Edward III · Richard II Henry IV · Henry V · Henry VI (1st) · Edward IV (1st) Henry VI (2nd) · ...

One more interesting possibility is that after Bosworth when Tydder or his rep first visited St George's, the achievements of the princes were still hanging above their stalls, providing some indirect evidence that they were still alive. It could explain why Henry always seemed to be looking over his shoulder...
A J

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:40 AM A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
My own conclusion, after looking at all the records I could lay my hands on, & analyzing what we think we know, is that a strong possibility is that the boys never left the Order. It was very common (as you will learn if you look at the many chapters that records do exist for), for the sovereign to write to excuse people from attending. I think it was so common, that if the boys were excused from attending, since they had hardly ever attended the St George's day feast before Richard's reign, that there would have been no special reason to remember it. And since most members didn't attend most years, I wonder who even would have known they also hadn't attended.

I agree with you that if Oliver King, as register of the Order, had known anything definite about what happened to Edward's sons, then that information would have reached Tydder, & we would know about it. It was surprising to realize that all that we do have is dates on which their stalls were filled --Edward V's stall as Prince of Wales filled again 8 May 1491, when Henry VII's son Arthur (died 2 April 1502)The stall of Edward IV's second son, Richard, Duke of York, was filled again when Sir William Stanley (beheaded 15 February 1494/5) became a member of the Order, the date most commonly given as before 27 May 1487.
It may also be important to know that we do not have the original records, although Ashmole seems to have seen both the paper record kept in French and the Latin record of the Black Book. What we do have is a transcription from the reign of Henry VIII - hence the uncomplimentary comments about Richard and fulsome comments about Edward V. Hard to know at what time they were added, but not I think part of the original record. Also, it looks as if Anstis (Garter King of Arms) made a thorough search for additional records when he wrote his The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, ..., MDCCXXIV. [1724] & incorporated his findings into his book.

A J
Here's what I wrote some time ago about the sources. (Sorry, it's so long).

The sources of information about the Order's activities in the 15th century, and their deficiencies
There are occasional references in government records such as the Calendar of the Patent Rolls, the Wardrobe Accounts and the records of King Richard's transactions under the Privy Seal (Harleian MS 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond, published in three volumes and an index 1979-1983). There are rare mentions of activities in private papers. The main source, however, is the records of the Order itself. Stall Plates. These are metal plates displaying the Arms of the occupants of each stall. They were originally meant to be placed on the Knight-Companion's Stall after his death, but as early as 1422, the practice seems to have evolved to placing the Stall Plates soon after the Member's installation. Unsurprisingly, over the centuries of the Order's existence many of these plates, especially from the earliest period, have disappeared. W H St John Hope (1901) noted that of the 140 Knights elected from 1348 to 1421, only 46 plates remained. Nicholas Harris Nicolas (1842) reported that the total number of Plates in April 1828 was 437 for 665 Knights-Companions. By 1901 Hope noted that 588 stall plates remained for 812 Knights-Companions (or about 72 per cent of the whole possible number); he also mentioned that losses continued. Edmund H Fellowes, bringing the list of Members up through 1939, mentioned that of the 264 Knights elected before the end of the reign of Henry VII only 113 had Stall Plates remaining. The Black Book. The Statutes of the Order required that the Order's Register (registrar) should keep a record of the Chapters (meetings between the Sovereign and Knights-Companions), as well as Scrutinies (chapters held to nominate candidates) and Elections. In theory, therefore, there should have been a complete record of the history of the Order. In practice, what actually survives falls short of that intention, with no surviving records of Chapters from before the 4th year of the reign of Henry IV. Accounts of the Order through the reign of Edward VI exist in two closely related forms.The earlier record is generally referred to as the Registrum Ordinis Chartaceum, or sometimes the French Register. It was described by Elias Ashmole (1672) as an old Paper Book, written in French (hitherto fortunately preserved in the Paper-Office at Whitehall). Unfortunately, the original manuscript disappeared by the time John Anstis, Garter King of Arms, was writing his work published in 1724. Ashmole described it as in all probability begun by John Coringham (Canon of Windsor from 1414) Register of the Order. What Ashmole took to be Coringham's handwriting continued until the 23rd year of Henry VI's reign (1438). There was then a gap until a new hand appeared about 1445. Thereafter several different hands could be distinguished, which Ashmole presumed belonged to the succeeding Registers of the Order, the manuscript being passed from one to the next. The next Register he identified was Richard Sidnor (who signed his name to the bottom of almost every leaf) in the 16th year of the reign of Henry VIII. His entries continued until 1535, when he was succeeded by Robert Aldrydge, another of the Canons of Windsor, whose entries ended in the 29th year of the reign of Henry VIII. The old Paper book finally ended in the 31. of [Henry VIII's] reign. A transcript of the Registrum Chartaceum may still exist, since both Anstis (1724) and Beltz (1841) refer to Ashmole's copy in the collection of his papers at Oxford. Both authors consulted these papers in attempting to remedy the demonstrated deficiencies in the lists of the Knights-Companions.The Black Book (Liber Niger) was described by Mr Ashmole as written in Latin and agreeing very neerly with the Registrum Chartaceum. There had been a decree passed in the 3rd year of the reign of Henry VII that the existing records should be fairly transcribed and that the Sovereign should be put in mind of it as being then needful to be renewed. Neither of these decrees took effect, however, and the Registrum was not transcribed until the end of the reign of Henry VIII, when according to a short account in the Preface to the Black Book, it was accomplished by Dr Aldrydge, while he was Register. This transcription was finished in the 31st year of Henry VIII's reign, but was continued in another hand until the 5th year of the reign of Edward 6th. Mr Ashmole, being apparently the last to see both the originals of these documents, noted that both the Registrum and the Black Book suffered from the same gaps: from the 16. to the 23. year of King Henry the Sixth, from the 7. to the 10. of Edward the Fourth, from the 4. to the 7. of Henry the Seventh, and from the 10. to the 14 of the same King. Although he made no mention of it, for those of us interested in the history of King Richard III, it should be noted that there is a gap in the record of Chapters: there is nothing said about the Feasts at Windsor after 1483 until 1488, nothing about Scrutinies after 1483 until 1489, and nothing about Elections after 1483 until 1489. The Black Book currently is held by the Archives of the College of St George at Windsor, although Nicolas (1842) stated that the original Liber Niger had disappeared, since its publication in 1724.The French Tables. These antient tables of succession, were described by Peter Heylyn (1633), when he printed them, as being kept in the quire of Windsore, on each side one: wherein are comprehended the names of all the founders, and such as did succeed in their several stalls, till the beginning of the reigne of King Henry the seventh. He included these lists partly that such an antient Monument, almost eaten out with time, may be preserved. He further observed that the last two monarchs in the Sovereign's list (Richard III and Henry VII) had been entered in a different (later) hand than the first group. From internal evidence, Heylyn argued that the first writer began his record during the reign of Edward IV; if correct, the recorder of the French Tables must necessarily have had earlier records that provided lists of occupants since the establishment of the Order in 1348. In 1672, Ashmole again printed the lists of knights in each stall based on these old French tables, describing them then as yet preserved in the Chapter-house at Windesor; he also made a point of identifying the entries in a later hand for each stall. It appears that the earlier recorder was active in the 1470's; while the later writer was active in the mid-1490's, the election of Prince Arthur on 8 May 1491, being his last definitely-dated entry. Anstis (1724) presented evidence that these tables were incomplete, however, especially with regard to knights who had been deposed from the Order, or who, although elected, had never been installed. He also noted that the tables, formerly lodged in the Chapter-house, have been since removed, stoln, or have entirely perished, by which misfortune an Antiquary loses the Satisfaction of an ocular Survey of them, whereby he might have been enabled, in some tolerable Degree, to have given his Conjectures of the Respective Ages of the different Hand-writings. Although he had, therefore, not been able to inspect these tables himself, he differed from Heylyn in supposing that the custom of recording the names of the knights in tables began about 1400. Nicolas (1842) again noted the deficiencies of the Tables, and reasoned from Ashmole's & Anstis's evidence of two different scribes that the first recorder ended his lists about the year 1476, the creation of the Tables coinciding with the completion of the new Chapel of St George's built by Edward IV. In the reign of King Henry the Seventh, the succession of Companions was continued (though not in every instance), to about the year 1495. Finally he observed that since these Tables no longer exist, the copy published in his book was taken literally from the one given by Ashmole.







On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

You know that surprises me. Considering that Richard founded the College of Arms I reckon he would be meticulous about such things and once they were illegitimate they were gone. Well Edward would be gone, as the sovereign the the heir are usually an automatic qualification. I suppose that there could be some arguments as to whether ROY was still Duke of Norfolk by marriage not birth, but the title had of course been passed on and John Howard had been made a KG in 1472. And Richard held at least two ceremonies in his lifetime as King.
 Are we sure it's not another bit of Tudor fable? H 
On Monday, 4 March 2019, 16:57:35 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

One more interesting possibility is that after Bosworth when Tydder or his rep first visited St George's, the achievements of the princes were still hanging above their stalls, providing some indirect evidence that they were still alive. It could explain why Henry always seemed to be looking over his shoulder...
A J

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:40 AM A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
My own conclusion, after looking at all the records I could lay my hands on, & analyzing what we think we know, is that a strong possibility is that the boys never left the Order. It was very common (as you will learn if you look at the many chapters that records do exist for), for the sovereign to write to excuse people from attending. I think it was so common, that if the boys were excused from attending, since they had hardly ever attended the St George's day feast before Richard's reign, that there would have been no special reason to remember it. And since most members didn't attend most years, I wonder who even would have known they also hadn't attended.

I agree with you that if Oliver King, as register of the Order, had known anything definite about what happened to Edward's sons, then that information would have reached Tydder, & we would know about it. It was surprising to realize that all that we do have is dates on which their stalls were filled --Edward V's stall as Prince of Wales filled again 8 May 1491, when Henry VII's son Arthur (died 2 April 1502)The stall of Edward IV's second son, Richard, Duke of York, was filled again when Sir William Stanley (beheaded 15 February 1494/5) became a member of the Order, the date most commonly given as before 27 May 1487.
It may also be important to know that we do not have the original records, although Ashmole seems to have seen both the paper record kept in French and the Latin record of the Black Book. What we do have is a transcription from the reign of Henry VIII - hence the uncomplimentary comments about Richard and fulsome comments about Edward V. Hard to know at what time they were added, but not I think part of the original record. Also, it looks as if Anstis (Garter King of Arms) made a thorough search for additional records when he wrote his The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, ..., MDCCXXIV. [1724] & incorporated his findings into his book.

A J
Here's what I wrote some time ago about the sources. (Sorry, it's so long).

The sources of information about the Order's activities in the 15th century, and their deficiencies
There are occasional references in government records such as the Calendar of the Patent Rolls, the Wardrobe Accounts and the records of King Richard's transactions under the Privy Seal (Harleian MS 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond, published in three volumes and an index 1979-1983). There are rare mentions of activities in private papers.  The main source, however, is the records of the Order itself. Stall Plates.. These are metal plates displaying the Arms of the occupants of each stall.. They were originally meant to be placed on the Knight-Companion's Stall after his death, but as early as 1422, the practice seems to have evolved to placing the Stall Plates soon after the Member's installation. Unsurprisingly, over the centuries of the Order's existence many of these plates, especially from the earliest period, have disappeared. W H St John Hope (1901) noted that of the 140 Knights elected from 1348 to 1421, only 46 plates remained. Nicholas Harris Nicolas (1842) reported that the total number of Plates in April 1828 was 437 for 665 Knights-Companions. By 1901 Hope noted that 588 stall plates remained for 812 Knights-Companions (or about 72 per cent of the whole possible number); he also mentioned that losses continued. Edmund H Fellowes, bringing the list of Members up through 1939, mentioned that of the 264 Knights elected before the end of the reign of Henry VII only 113 had Stall Plates remaining.. The Black Book. The Statutes of the Order required that the Order's Register (registrar) should keep a record of the Chapters (meetings between the Sovereign and Knights-Companions), as well as Scrutinies (chapters held to nominate candidates) and Elections. In theory, therefore, there should have been a complete record of the history of the Order. In practice, what actually survives falls short of that intention, with no surviving records of Chapters from before the 4th year of the reign of Henry IV. Accounts of the Order through the reign of Edward VI exist in two closely related forms.The earlier record is generally referred to as the Registrum Ordinis Chartaceum, or sometimes the French Register. It was described by Elias Ashmole (1672) as an old Paper Book, written in French (hitherto fortunately preserved in the Paper-Office at Whitehall).  Unfortunately, the original manuscript disappeared by the time John Anstis, Garter King of Arms, was writing his work published in 1724. Ashmole described it as in all probability begun by John Coringham (Canon of Windsor from 1414) Register of the Order. What Ashmole took to be Coringham's handwriting continued until the 23rd year of Henry VI's reign (1438). There was then a gap until a new hand appeared about 1445. Thereafter several different hands could be distinguished, which Ashmole presumed belonged to the succeeding Registers of the Order, the manuscript being passed from one to the next. The next Register he identified was Richard Sidnor (who signed his name to the bottom of almost every leaf) in the 16th year of the reign of Henry VIII. His entries continued until 1535, when he was succeeded by Robert Aldrydge, another of the Canons of Windsor, whose entries ended in the 29th year of the reign of Henry VIII. The old Paper book finally ended in the 31. of [Henry VIII's] reign. A transcript of the Registrum Chartaceum may still exist, since both Anstis (1724) and Beltz (1841) refer to Ashmole's copy in the collection of his papers at Oxford. Both authors consulted these papers in attempting to remedy the demonstrated deficiencies in the lists of the Knights-Companions.The Black Book (Liber Niger) was described by Mr Ashmole as written in Latin and agreeing very neerly with the Registrum Chartaceum. There had been a decree passed in the 3rd year of the reign of Henry VII that the existing records should be fairly transcribed and that the Sovereign should be put in mind of it as being then needful to be renewed. Neither of these decrees took effect, however, and the Registrum was not transcribed until the end of the reign of Henry VIII, when according to a short account in the Preface to the Black Book, it was accomplished by Dr Aldrydge, while he was Register. This transcription was finished in the 31st year of Henry VIII's reign, but was continued in another hand until the 5th year of the reign of Edward 6th. Mr Ashmole, being apparently the last to see both the originals of these documents, noted that both the Registrum and the Black Book suffered from the same gaps: from the 16. to the 23. year of King Henry the Sixth, from the 7. to the 10.. of Edward the Fourth, from the 4. to the 7. of Henry the Seventh, and from the 10. to the 14 of the same King. Although he made no mention of it, for those of us interested in the history of King Richard III, it should be noted that there is a gap in the record of Chapters: there is nothing said about the Feasts at Windsor after 1483 until 1488, nothing about Scrutinies after 1483 until 1489, and nothing about Elections after 1483 until 1489. The Black Book currently is held by the Archives of the College of St George at Windsor, although Nicolas (1842) stated that the original Liber Niger had disappeared, since its publication in 1724.The French Tables. These antient tables of succession, were described by Peter Heylyn (1633), when he printed them, as being kept in the quire of Windsore, on each side one: wherein are comprehended the names of all the founders, and such as did succeed in their several stalls, till the beginning of the reigne of King Henry the seventh. He included these lists partly that such an antient Monument, almost eaten out with time, may be preserved. He further observed that the last two monarchs in the Sovereign's list (Richard III and Henry VII) had been entered in a different (later) hand than the first group. From internal evidence, Heylyn argued that the first writer began his record during the reign of Edward IV; if correct, the recorder of the French Tables must necessarily have had earlier records that provided lists of occupants since the establishment of the Order in 1348. In 1672, Ashmole again printed the lists of knights in each stall based on these old French tables, describing them then as yet preserved in the Chapter-house at Windesor; he also made a point of identifying the entries in a later hand for each stall. It appears that the earlier recorder was active in the 1470's; while the later writer was active in the mid-1490's, the election of Prince Arthur on 8 May 1491, being his last definitely-dated entry. Anstis (1724) presented evidence that these tables were incomplete, however, especially with regard to knights who had been deposed from the Order, or who, although elected, had never been installed. He also noted that the tables, formerly lodged in the Chapter-house, have been since removed, stoln, or have entirely perished, by which misfortune an Antiquary loses the Satisfaction of an ocular Survey of them, whereby he might have been enabled, in some tolerable Degree, to have given his Conjectures of the Respective Ages of the different Hand-writings. Although he had, therefore, not been able to inspect these tables himself, he differed from Heylyn in supposing that the custom of recording the names of the knights in tables began about 1400. Nicolas (1842) again noted the deficiencies of the Tables, and reasoned from Ashmole's & Anstis's evidence of two different scribes that the first recorder ended his lists about the year 1476, the creation of the Tables coinciding with the completion of the new Chapel of St George's built by Edward IV. In the reign of King Henry the Seventh, the succession of Companions was continued (though not in every instance), to about the year 1495. Finally he observed that since these Tables no longer exist, the copy published in his book was taken literally from the one given by Ashmole..







On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:
 

I agree that Richard was meticulous. He also strikes me as observant of the law. I don't recall if I typed up the regulations of the Order in Richard's day (copies of the Statutes are known & have been published, although maybe only three or so, since they were supposed to be surrendered when a man ceased to be a Knight-Companion). But the Statutes did specify the terms under which someone left the Order. I don't see Richard ignoring the Statutes without going through some process to allow it. Again, if there had been a record of that, I can't imagine Tydder & his minions not making use of it.

This is what the version of the Statutes said as made by Henry VIII.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/ecco/004894364.0001.000/1:35?rgn=div1;submit=Go;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;q1=degrad*

This is not what the earlier statutes said, & the case sometimes cited as proving that illegitimacy was cause for degradation, seems to have been politically motivated; & the man (again if I'm recalling correctly) was later re-instated.

I'll keep looking for an earlier version of the Statutes.
A J

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:24 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

You know that surprises me. Considering that Richard founded the College of Arms I reckon he would be meticulous about such things and once they were illegitimate they were gone. Well Edward would be gone, as the sovereign the the heir are usually an automatic qualification. I suppose that there could be some arguments as to whether ROY was still Duke of Norfolk by marriage not birth, but the title had of course been passed on and John Howard had been made a KG in 1472. And Richard held at least two ceremonies in his lifetime as King.
Are we sure it's not another bit of Tudor fable? H
On Monday, 4 March 2019, 16:57:35 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

One more interesting possibility is that after Bosworth when Tydder or his rep first visited St George's, the achievements of the princes were still hanging above their stalls, providing some indirect evidence that they were still alive. It could explain why Henry always seemed to be looking over his shoulder...
A J

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:40 AM A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
My own conclusion, after looking at all the records I could lay my hands on, & analyzing what we think we know, is that a strong possibility is that the boys never left the Order. It was very common (as you will learn if you look at the many chapters that records do exist for), for the sovereign to write to excuse people from attending. I think it was so common, that if the boys were excused from attending, since they had hardly ever attended the St George's day feast before Richard's reign, that there would have been no special reason to remember it. And since most members didn't attend most years, I wonder who even would have known they also hadn't attended.

I agree with you that if Oliver King, as register of the Order, had known anything definite about what happened to Edward's sons, then that information would have reached Tydder, & we would know about it. It was surprising to realize that all that we do have is dates on which their stalls were filled --Edward V's stall as Prince of Wales filled again 8 May 1491, when Henry VII's son Arthur (died 2 April 1502)The stall of Edward IV's second son, Richard, Duke of York, was filled again when Sir William Stanley (beheaded 15 February 1494/5) became a member of the Order, the date most commonly given as before 27 May 1487.
It may also be important to know that we do not have the original records, although Ashmole seems to have seen both the paper record kept in French and the Latin record of the Black Book. What we do have is a transcription from the reign of Henry VIII - hence the uncomplimentary comments about Richard and fulsome comments about Edward V. Hard to know at what time they were added, but not I think part of the original record. Also, it looks as if Anstis (Garter King of Arms) made a thorough search for additional records when he wrote his The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, ..., MDCCXXIV. [1724] & incorporated his findings into his book.

A J
Here's what I wrote some time ago about the sources. (Sorry, it's so long).

The sources of information about the Order's activities in the 15th century, and their deficiencies
There are occasional references in government records such as the Calendar of the Patent Rolls, the Wardrobe Accounts and the records of King Richard's transactions under the Privy Seal (Harleian MS 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond, published in three volumes and an index 1979-1983). There are rare mentions of activities in private papers. The main source, however, is the records of the Order itself. Stall Plates.. These are metal plates displaying the Arms of the occupants of each stall.. They were originally meant to be placed on the Knight-Companion's Stall after his death, but as early as 1422, the practice seems to have evolved to placing the Stall Plates soon after the Member's installation. Unsurprisingly, over the centuries of the Order's existence many of these plates, especially from the earliest period, have disappeared. W H St John Hope (1901) noted that of the 140 Knights elected from 1348 to 1421, only 46 plates remained. Nicholas Harris Nicolas (1842) reported that the total number of Plates in April 1828 was 437 for 665 Knights-Companions. By 1901 Hope noted that 588 stall plates remained for 812 Knights-Companions (or about 72 per cent of the whole possible number); he also mentioned that losses continued. Edmund H Fellowes, bringing the list of Members up through 1939, mentioned that of the 264 Knights elected before the end of the reign of Henry VII only 113 had Stall Plates remaining.. The Black Book. The Statutes of the Order required that the Order's Register (registrar) should keep a record of the Chapters (meetings between the Sovereign and Knights-Companions), as well as Scrutinies (chapters held to nominate candidates) and Elections. In theory, therefore, there should have been a complete record of the history of the Order. In practice, what actually survives falls short of that intention, with no surviving records of Chapters from before the 4th year of the reign of Henry IV. Accounts of the Order through the reign of Edward VI exist in two closely related forms.The earlier record is generally referred to as the Registrum Ordinis Chartaceum, or sometimes the French Register. It was described by Elias Ashmole (1672) as an old Paper Book, written in French (hitherto fortunately preserved in the Paper-Office at Whitehall). Unfortunately, the original manuscript disappeared by the time John Anstis, Garter King of Arms, was writing his work published in 1724. Ashmole described it as in all probability begun by John Coringham (Canon of Windsor from 1414) Register of the Order. What Ashmole took to be Coringham's handwriting continued until the 23rd year of Henry VI's reign (1438). There was then a gap until a new hand appeared about 1445. Thereafter several different hands could be distinguished, which Ashmole presumed belonged to the succeeding Registers of the Order, the manuscript being passed from one to the next. The next Register he identified was Richard Sidnor (who signed his name to the bottom of almost every leaf) in the 16th year of the reign of Henry VIII. His entries continued until 1535, when he was succeeded by Robert Aldrydge, another of the Canons of Windsor, whose entries ended in the 29th year of the reign of Henry VIII. The old Paper book finally ended in the 31. of [Henry VIII's] reign. A transcript of the Registrum Chartaceum may still exist, since both Anstis (1724) and Beltz (1841) refer to Ashmole's copy in the collection of his papers at Oxford. Both authors consulted these papers in attempting to remedy the demonstrated deficiencies in the lists of the Knights-Companions.The Black Book (Liber Niger) was described by Mr Ashmole as written in Latin and agreeing very neerly with the Registrum Chartaceum. There had been a decree passed in the 3rd year of the reign of Henry VII that the existing records should be fairly transcribed and that the Sovereign should be put in mind of it as being then needful to be renewed. Neither of these decrees took effect, however, and the Registrum was not transcribed until the end of the reign of Henry VIII, when according to a short account in the Preface to the Black Book, it was accomplished by Dr Aldrydge, while he was Register. This transcription was finished in the 31st year of Henry VIII's reign, but was continued in another hand until the 5th year of the reign of Edward 6th. Mr Ashmole, being apparently the last to see both the originals of these documents, noted that both the Registrum and the Black Book suffered from the same gaps: from the 16. to the 23. year of King Henry the Sixth, from the 7. to the 10.. of Edward the Fourth, from the 4. to the 7. of Henry the Seventh, and from the 10. to the 14 of the same King. Although he made no mention of it, for those of us interested in the history of King Richard III, it should be noted that there is a gap in the record of Chapters: there is nothing said about the Feasts at Windsor after 1483 until 1488, nothing about Scrutinies after 1483 until 1489, and nothing about Elections after 1483 until 1489. The Black Book currently is held by the Archives of the College of St George at Windsor, although Nicolas (1842) stated that the original Liber Niger had disappeared, since its publication in 1724.The French Tables. These antient tables of succession, were described by Peter Heylyn (1633), when he printed them, as being kept in the quire of Windsore, on each side one: wherein are comprehended the names of all the founders, and such as did succeed in their several stalls, till the beginning of the reigne of King Henry the seventh. He included these lists partly that such an antient Monument, almost eaten out with time, may be preserved. He further observed that the last two monarchs in the Sovereign's list (Richard III and Henry VII) had been entered in a different (later) hand than the first group. From internal evidence, Heylyn argued that the first writer began his record during the reign of Edward IV; if correct, the recorder of the French Tables must necessarily have had earlier records that provided lists of occupants since the establishment of the Order in 1348. In 1672, Ashmole again printed the lists of knights in each stall based on these old French tables, describing them then as yet preserved in the Chapter-house at Windesor; he also made a point of identifying the entries in a later hand for each stall. It appears that the earlier recorder was active in the 1470's; while the later writer was active in the mid-1490's, the election of Prince Arthur on 8 May 1491, being his last definitely-dated entry. Anstis (1724) presented evidence that these tables were incomplete, however, especially with regard to knights who had been deposed from the Order, or who, although elected, had never been installed. He also noted that the tables, formerly lodged in the Chapter-house, have been since removed, stoln, or have entirely perished, by which misfortune an Antiquary loses the Satisfaction of an ocular Survey of them, whereby he might have been enabled, in some tolerable Degree, to have given his Conjectures of the Respective Ages of the different Hand-writings. Although he had, therefore, not been able to inspect these tables himself, he differed from Heylyn in supposing that the custom of recording the names of the knights in tables began about 1400. Nicolas (1842) again noted the deficiencies of the Tables, and reasoned from Ashmole's & Anstis's evidence of two different scribes that the first recorder ended his lists about the year 1476, the creation of the Tables coinciding with the completion of the new Chapel of St George's built by Edward IV. In the reign of King Henry the Seventh, the succession of Companions was continued (though not in every instance), to about the year 1495. Finally he observed that since these Tables no longer exist, the copy published in his book was taken literally from the one given by Ashmole..







On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 9:55 AM 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Doug/Carol/Nico this may help a bit.
Forster was a Londoner, his father was Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor in 1455. He is linked with Oliver King, Thomas Vaughan, Philip Malpas and the Beaumonts. I'll give you the full details (for Nico particularly) in a separate post, probably tomorrow. Oh what an incestuous crowd! When he died in 1487 he left his estates in Bedfordshire (which had once belonged to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester) to none other than Archbishop Morton. His sister was married to another Morton, Robert a barrister of York - who fought for Richard at Bosworth and described him as an excellent King (we have his will).
If you do a Google you'll see that Chris Skidmore (sorry!) has him as being allied to Hastings over some lands in St Albans - I have yet to locate all this but Skidmore loves quoting More which rather puts me off - and says that he was arrested because he was part of a Hastings plot. I don't have Skidmore's book but may venture to Kindle it in desperation.
What I do begin to think - and I'd love Nico's view on this - is that there was some sort of covert movement in London, probably allied to the French, the Woodvilles, HT - all or some. Which is why I reckon if HT had made a dash for London some of these folk there might well have let him in. And it could well be to do with the cultural/economic differences between London (remember nearly half the population of the UK) and the rest. Edward IV, probably through laziness as much as anything, and EW had wooed London. Richard was an outsider, he might as well have been Scottish or Welsh. The merchants, the wealthy, were worried. Richard really should have spent a bit more time in London at the very beginning. Sorry, just my view. H

On Tuesday, 5 March 2019, 15:29:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 4:44 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary posted a link to a list of Knights and Ladies of the Garter. I'm wondering why neither Richard, Duke of Gloucester, not George, Duke of Clarence, is listed under Edward IV's appointees.

Carol

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, 4:55 pm, justcarol67@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary erote:

Hi,
Thanks for that update on Forster. I hadn't been exactly sure where he fitted in. They were certainly an incestuous group. According to the notes in 'The Merchant Class of Medieval London,' John Forster married Joan Cooke, daughter of Sir Thomas Cooke (the one who fell foul of Anthony Woodville)and Philip Malpas' daughter Elizabeth. Stephen Forster was from Somerset, near Bath, so John Forster had West Country connections like Morton. Perhaps the families knew each other. Philip Malpas' other daughter married Ralph Josselyn. He later married Elizabeth Barley who went on to marry Sir Robert Clifford, who gave HT all that useful information about Perkin Warbeck. Malpas' wife was Juliana Beaumond, the daughter of John Beaumond the Chandler, who seems to be related to the Archdeacon John Beaumond/Bonauntre who sister married Brampton. Oliver King and Thomas Beaumont knew each, and I'm still trying to find a few more links between these families.
Therefore, a pattern does emerge here of a group of interconnected families who appear to have been keeping an eye on their old Yorkist links for Henry Tudor's benefit. It seems to be a merge of London/Essex/Kent families merging with West Country old Lancaster ties. Poor Ralph Wilford seems to have come from their London heartland, and the Wilfords show up again in Kent with the Spaynes/Beaumonts/Bramptons. When you look at Clifford in the context of his involvement with all these families who did exceptionally well under HT, then it shows his involvement with Warbeck and what he reported about other people such as Sir William Stanley in another light.

You could be right that Richard was out of his depth with the merchant class having spent so much time up North. The Woodvilles were better connected in London, although I doubt that they could command support from the merchant class, especially after what happened with Thomas Cook. The French could have had some involvement, but I think their main factor was self interest in opportunities for advancement under HT.
I have had to catch up after a few days, but the discussion on the Garter and Oliver King was very interesting. Perhaps King was in a position to let HT know that fate of the Princes was by no means certain. That must have been disturbing news if he had been counting on French rumours that they were dead. Could this be why he appeared to be getting cold feet about the marriage with Elizabeth of York? Ultimately, he had to go through with it, but he was in a weaker position when he had to repeal Titulus Regius, which would have given him some protection from the illegitimate princes. With no choice but to legitimize them, he needed all the help he could get, and King would have probably been happy to supply whatever information he needed.
Nico
On Tuesday, 5 March 2019, 16:00:28 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug/Carol/Nico this may help a bit.
Forster was a Londoner, his father was Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor in 1455. He is linked with Oliver King, Thomas Vaughan, Philip Malpas and the Beaumonts. I'll give you the full details (for Nico particularly) in a separate post, probably tomorrow. Oh what an incestuous crowd! When he died in 1487 he left his estates in Bedfordshire (which had once belonged to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester) to none other than Archbishop Morton. His sister was married to another Morton, Robert a barrister of York - who fought for Richard at Bosworth and described him as an excellent King (we have his will).
If you do a Google you'll see that Chris Skidmore (sorry!) has him as being allied to Hastings over some lands in St Albans - I have yet to locate all this but Skidmore loves quoting More which rather puts me off - and says that he was arrested because he was part of a Hastings plot. I don't have Skidmore's book but may venture to Kindle it in desperation.
What I do begin to think - and I'd love Nico's view on this - is that there was some sort of covert movement in London, probably allied to the French, the Woodvilles, HT - all or some. Which is why I reckon if HT had made a dash for London some of these folk there might well have let him in. And it could well be to do with the cultural/economic differences between London (remember nearly half the population of the UK) and the rest. Edward IV, probably through laziness as much as anything, and EW had wooed London. Richard was an outsider, he might as well have been Scottish or Welsh. The merchants, the wealthy, were worried. Richard really should have spent a bit more time in London at the very beginning. Sorry, just my view. H

On Tuesday, 5 March 2019, 15:29:51 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi all, I am away from home so have a couple of minutes away from to-do list to pop in, if I may.

As per earlier discussions on the forum on King and Forster, Forster owned the manor of Maudelyns in Herts (right next door to Cecily at Berkhamsted) and was arrested there the day after Hastings' downfall and taken to the Tower.
The info on his links with Hastings is in the St Albans Abbey register and we've discussed it before as it shows Catesby apparently profiteering from the situation. More details on Forsters' arrest and imprisonment are in the Parliament Rolls for Henry VII's first Parliament, unfortunately behind a paywall.

There is a useful article on Forster in an old issue of Herts Past and Present - probably by JT Driver but I can't check as I don't have access to my stuff.

Marie

Hi all, I am away from home so have a couple of minutes away from to-do list to pop in, if I may.

As per earlier discussions on the forum on King and Forster, Forster owned the manor of Maudelyns in Herts (right next door to Cecily at Berkhamsted) and was arrested there the day after Hastings' downfall and taken to the Tower.
The info on his links with Hastings is in the St Albans Abbey register and we've discussed it before as it shows Catesby apparently profiteering from the situation. More details on Forsters' arrest and imprisonment are in the Parliament Rolls for Henry VII's first Parliament, unfortunately behind a paywall.

There is a useful article on Forster in an old issue of Herts Past and Present - probably by JT Driver but I can't check as I don't have access to my stuff.

Marie

Hi Hilary,
Nice to be back albeit briefly. I'm pretty sure you were on the forum then. Maudelyns or Mawdeleyns is located certainly now, whatever specula ltion there may have been in the past. The author of the HP& P article is an academic historian of our period, not some local dilettante.
Anyhow, the entry in the Abbey register was clearly written at some remove of time as it has the days of the week wrong, but there are copies of the published version for free download.
I've never Research it in detail, but it was his wife who was the ?Margaret Forster who got the city council to improve conditions in Ludgate.

Hi all, I am away from home so have a couple of minutes away from to-do list to pop in, if I may.

As per earlier discussions on the forum on King and Forster, Forster owned the manor of Maudelyns in Herts (right next door to Cecily at Berkhamsted) and was arrested there the day after Hastings' downfall and taken to the Tower.
The info on his links with Hastings is in the St Albans Abbey register and we've discussed it before as it shows Catesby apparently profiteering from the situation. More details on Forsters' arrest and imprisonment are in the Parliament Rolls for Henry VII's first Parliament, unfortunately behind a paywall.

There is a useful article on Forster in an old issue of Herts Past and Present - probably by JT Driver but I can't check as I don't have access to my stuff.

Marie

Sorry, messaging between helping look after 17-nth-old poorly grandson. I meant to say that, to be elected KG you first had to be a knight. Catesby was never knighted by Richard. Perhaps he would have been knighted after Bosworth if he had proved himself in battle -who knows.
Have you looked at the Anstis/ Ashmole edition of the Garter records? One volume contains description of the history and rules, whilst the other summarises the surviving records of annual feasts/ chapters (together with lists of those excused attendance in advance, and those penalised for unauthorised non-attendance), and also includes surviving records of occasional chapters and elections
, degradations, deaths of members, etc.
So from that you can see which years we are missing information for.
Although we don't have official Garter records for 1HVIi. we do have an account of the annual feast, which was held in York, in The Heralds' Memoir (as part and parcel of the account of Henry's first progress). Anstis also found some financial records which shed a bit of light on those first years of Henry's reign. He seems to have been initially reluctant to pay the cost of the traditional annual provisions.
From Anstis you can see not only who was elected to the Order but also the full lists of nominees, of which some survive from Richard's reign.
You can also trace members through their stalls since each member was assigned a particular stall. Also if you know the full list of KGs at any one time you can see if any stalks were vacant even if you can't say for sure which ones they were.
The Prince of Wales had to be elected to the Order, but had a special stall which was vacant when there was no pow, and of course in becoming King he moved into the King's place at the head. Edward v would therefore automatically have lost his place in the Order on being deposed, as previous deposed king's had before him. What is not clear is whether Richard's son was ever made kg. He was knighted at York in The late summer of 1483, so it's probable Richard had plans for his entry into the Order which were cut short by his death (the 1484 feast would not have been held until May owing to the proximity of St George's Day to Easter that year).
I did look into the question of RdoY's stall once and there was certainly no proof that Richard had given it away but the extant evidence really wasn't adequate. The problem caused by lack of records for the years in question was further compounded by Edward IV's failure to get Clarence's stall off his hands.

The vols of The register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter are available for free download on google books, if you don't have them.

Marie

Thanks a million Marie. I do hope your grandson is soon better! H
On Wednesday, 6 March 2019, 15:06:41 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry, messaging between helping look after 17-nth-old poorly grandson. I meant to say that, to be elected KG you first had to be a knight. Catesby was never knighted by Richard. Perhaps he would have been knighted after Bosworth if he had proved himself in battle -who knows.
Have you looked at the Anstis/ Ashmole edition of the Garter records? One volume contains description of the history and rules, whilst the other summarises the surviving records of annual feasts/ chapters (together with lists of those excused attendance in advance, and those penalised for unauthorised non-attendance), and also includes surviving records of occasional chapters and elections
, degradations, deaths of members, etc.
So from that you can see which years we are missing information for.
Although we don't have official Garter records for 1HVIi. we do have an account of the annual feast, which was held in York, in The Heralds' Memoir (as part and parcel of the account of Henry's first progress). Anstis also found some financial records which shed a bit of light on those first years of Henry's reign. He seems to have been initially reluctant to pay the cost of the traditional annual provisions.
From Anstis you can see not only who was elected to the Order but also the full lists of nominees, of which some survive from Richard's reign.
You can also trace members through their stalls since each member was assigned a particular stall. Also if you know the full list of KGs at any one time you can see if any stalks were vacant even if you can't say for sure which ones they were.
The Prince of Wales had to be elected to the Order, but had a special stall which was vacant when there was no pow, and of course in becoming King he moved into the King's place at the head. Edward v would therefore automatically have lost his place in the Order on being deposed, as previous deposed king's had before him. What is not clear is whether Richard's son was ever made kg. He was knighted at York in The late summer of 1483, so it's probable Richard had plans for his entry into the Order which were cut short by his death (the 1484 feast would not have been held until May owing to the proximity of St George's Day to Easter that year).
I did look into the question of RdoY's stall once and there was certainly no proof that Richard had given it away but the extant evidence really wasn't adequate. The problem caused by lack of records for the years in question was further compounded by Edward IV's failure to get Clarence's stall off his hands.

The vols of The register of the Most Noble Order of the Garter are available for free download on google books, if you don't have them.

Marie

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

Hi,
Hilary:I keep coming back to that letter I attached which was written in the Autumn of 1464 and said that the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriage. Why didn't Edward deal with them more harshly unless he secretly wanted them to find an impediment (but not Eleanor of course that would have been too much of a scandal)? That must have scared EW and stayed with her forever. She perhaps felt secure after the birth of an heir, but if he was ailing and only a ten year old left ...........? Her family could have been working on putting these contingency plans in place for years. And though she wasn't as prominent in London as Edward she was patron of some of the Guilds, I recall?
The fact the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriages does raise the question again about EW's insecurity over the legitimacy of her children. If the council had tried to annul it in 1464, when Edward was King they could try again once he was dead. That brings to mind the story of her possible involvement in the execution of the Earl of Desmond and his sons. I question elements of it, especially about the sons whose names are not known (I would have thought the names would have been recorded if it were true, and even if they had existed at all), but there is no doubt about his fate, so there may have been element of truth about her involvement. If she was insecure about her son's legitimacy, she would have panicked when Edward died suddenly. It also reopens the question again about who knew about the precontract. If it didn't emerge in 1464, that suggests that only a small number of people close to Eleanor were aware of it. Did they not come forward on her instructions? If so, that could indicate that it may have been Eleanor who may have rejected Edward. Perhaps because she misunderstood the consequences of vows made in verbo presenta, or because she was disgusted by Edward's relationship with her cousin Somerset (if that was true).
Hilary: I do think Oliver King was an informer - he could have been in the pay of Louis? We know Louis loved people who could speak good French. He waxed lyrical about Warwick, in fact Warwick seems to have been very much admired by the European community, including the Pope. As for the rest, I reckon there's still more to find out to make it hall hang together. Onwards and upwards!!

I wouldn't put it past him to King to spy for the French and possibly recruit other spies. By the time HT emerged, he may have been seasoned in espionage.. The Somerset connection is relevant as King, Cosyn and Beaumont all did well ecclesiastically in the Bath and Wells diocese. Beaumont and Cosyn were much younger than King; so he was probably some sort of mentor for them, then introduced them to spying, especially in their old Yorkist circles. Both Beaumont and Cosyn had meteoric rises, the former dating from around the time Brampton switched his loyalty. So much is said about HT's complex spy network, but I haven't found discussion of who they were or how he ran them. Could King have to HT what Walsingham was to Elizabeth I?
Marie, I hope your grandson is feeling better.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 11:04:34 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

Hi Doug,
It's complicated. A nice neat list but deceptively neat because compiled from incomplete and h clear sources. Certainly there were free places following the executions of Hastings, Rivers and Buckingham, and there were Garter elections during Richard's reign, but the outcome of these is not entirely clear. Hilary will gather what is known on that subject from Anstis.
There is also the political aspect of Richard trying to give away RDoY's place - Edward had found difficulty giving away Clarence's stall and so even if RdoY were dead, and known to be dead, Richard might have avoided offering his stall, or been very careful who he offered it to.
And, as Hilary says, there was a long list of hopefuls. Every election the knights had a list of names to chose from, and candidates often had to wait years to get elected. Richard would have wished to maintain the appearance of continuity with Edward's reign and reward not only his own followers but also those who had been at the top of the list when Edward died.
Also the choice was not entirely down to the King. Each knight put forward three names. The King looked at the nominations and made his choice(s) from them, generally choosing people who a lot of votes and had been on the lists in previous elections, and avoiding candidates who had few votes so as not to turn the idea that it was an election by the members into a complete farce.
So really, even had we a full record of the Garter elections of Richard's reign, that reign was too short for us to tell the full list of folks he had in mind for promotion to the Order.
Marie

I hate to see people re-creating the wheel. I spent considerable time a few years ago looking at as much source material as I could lay my hands on regarding Richard's history with the Order of the Garter. I summarized it in a booklet for Richard III's Loyal Supporters. Since it was produced to try to raise some money for that organization (I think we sold it for a few pounds) I don't feel I can just give it away. It also involved the work of another member of the group in doing the design layout & printing & distribution. If you're really interested in pursuing this topic, please get in touch with me; we do probably have some booklets available.

Edward IV's sons were made Knights-Companions at ridiculously young ages, long before they might have done any service to merit their election.
Edward (Plantagenet), then Prince of Wales, elected 15 May 1475, at age five, to the Stall that had been reserved for him.
Richard (Plantagenet), 5th Duke of York, second son of the Sovereign, elected the same day as his older brother.
There were free places at the start of Richard's reign, as there were in fact for most of Edward's reign. I believe there were probably three elections during Richard's reign. It is also worth knowing that in order to be "counted" as a Member of the Order, the candidate had to be nominated (scrutiny) elected and installed (which could be done by proxy).

The Prince's stall was not necessarily vacant when not filled by the Prince of Wales. Other individuals had held that stall in the 15th century.
We have no record of Garter elections during Richard's reign - only the record of a single scrutiny not held at Windsor, and a list of knights who were added to the Order during his reign.
A J

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:22 AM mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Doug,
It's complicated. A nice neat list but deceptively neat because compiled from incomplete and h clear sources. Certainly there were free places following the executions of Hastings, Rivers and Buckingham, and there were Garter elections during Richard's reign, but the outcome of these is not entirely clear. Hilary will gather what is known on that subject from Anstis.
There is also the political aspect of Richard trying to give away RDoY's place - Edward had found difficulty giving away Clarence's stall and so even if RdoY were dead, and known to be dead, Richard might have avoided offering his stall, or been very careful who he offered it to.
And, as Hilary says, there was a long list of hopefuls. Every election the knights had a list of names to chose from, and candidates often had to wait years to get elected. Richard would have wished to maintain the appearance of continuity with Edward's reign and reward not only his own followers but also those who had been at the top of the list when Edward died.
Also the choice was not entirely down to the King. Each knight put forward three names. The King looked at the nominations and made his choice(s) from them, generally choosing people who a lot of votes and had been on the lists in previous elections, and avoiding candidates who had few votes so as not to turn the idea that it was an election by the members into a complete farce.
So really, even had we a full record of the Garter elections of Richard's reign, that reign was too short for us to tell the full list of folks he had in mind for promotion to the Order.
Marie

Hi AJ,

Well done on your booklet. I'm sure it will be of great use. I looked into this as well a few years ago -and I think others have before me - and made a spreadsheet of the ownership of the various stalls over the Yorkist period and early HVII but didn't publish anything so I won't have ironed out the creases and I am only writing here out of my head, as I've made clear.
I am actually all for people reinventing the wheel if it means they end up with a proper inside understanding, and the ins and outs of the Garter places over this brief period are open to some interpretation, which is why I thought Hilary might want to look at them for herself.
A king's sons and brothers would indeed be elected at a very young age. Wasn't Arthur only two or three? But it's also true that this wasn't the case for ordinary mortals.
I take your point about the Prince's stall; I understand that this has been pointed out. But I think ( from memory) that this was a bit irregular as per the Statutes and I seem to recall finding, when I checked the instances for myself, that - unsurprisingly- it was only ever bestowed on someone else in circumstances where the king had no son. Ergo Richard can be assumed to have been reserving it for his Edward of Middleham until April 1484.
I also seem to recall some discrepancy in the records regarding the results of Richard's known Garter election (involving Stanleys?). And do we not have lists of all the names put forward by the various companions for the one election known of (for which I concur we have no date and no details), which would be enlightening for the group re speculation as to who may have been under consideration.
I grant there were no annual feast and chapters held in Windsor in either 148; or 1585. The 1484 one was due to have been held late owing to the Statutes prohibiting it being too near Easter, and was clearly being planned as surcoats were ordered from the Wardrobe on 24 April, and the 1485 proceedings were cancelled (ie to be nominally held by deputy) at the last minute because Richard had to go to London for important treason trials.

And just to make it even more exciting, remember Adam Moleyns was one of the ones ho recommended Thomas Vaughan for citizenship? Well the lesser Montagues (Alice's cousins) seem to have married into the Moleyns family in the 1460s. They were from Berkshire which of course is where Bisham is. One day we will unravel it?
If you're still there, Marie, do you know much about our attainted Countess - Warwick's mother? H

iOn Thursday, 7 March 2019, 13:32:20 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary:I keep coming back to that letter I attached which was written in the Autumn of 1464 and said that the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriage. Why didn't Edward deal with them more harshly unless he secretly wanted them to find an impediment (but not Eleanor of course that would have been too much of a scandal)? That must have scared EW and stayed with her forever. She perhaps felt secure after the birth of an heir, but if he was ailing and only a ten year old left ...........? Her family could have been working on putting these contingency plans in place for years. And though she wasn't as prominent in London as Edward she was patron of some of the Guilds, I recall?
The fact the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriages does raise the question again about EW's insecurity over the legitimacy of her children. If the council had tried to annul it in 1464, when Edward was King they could try again once he was dead. That brings to mind the story of her possible involvement in the execution of the Earl of Desmond and his sons. I question elements of it, especially about the sons whose names are not known (I would have thought the names would have been recorded if it were true, and even if they had existed at all), but there is no doubt about his fate, so there may have been element of truth about her involvement. If she was insecure about her son's legitimacy, she would have panicked when Edward died suddenly. It also reopens the question again about who knew about the precontract. If it didn't emerge in 1464, that suggests that only a small number of people close to Eleanor were aware of it. Did they not come forward on her instructions? If so, that could indicate that it may have been Eleanor who may have rejected Edward. Perhaps because she misunderstood the consequences of vows made in verbo presenta, or because she was disgusted by Edward's relationship with her cousin Somerset (if that was true).
Hilary: I do think Oliver King was an informer - he could have been in the pay of Louis? We know Louis loved people who could speak good French. He waxed lyrical about Warwick, in fact Warwick seems to have been very much admired by the European community, including the Pope. As for the rest, I reckon there's still more to find out to make it hall hang together. Onwards and upwards!!

I wouldn't put it past him to King to spy for the French and possibly recruit other spies. By the time HT emerged, he may have been seasoned in espionage.. The Somerset connection is relevant as King, Cosyn and Beaumont all did well ecclesiastically in the Bath and Wells diocese. Beaumont and Cosyn were much younger than King; so he was probably some sort of mentor for them, then introduced them to spying, especially in their old Yorkist circles. Both Beaumont and Cosyn had meteoric rises, the former dating from around the time Brampton switched his loyalty. So much is said about HT's complex spy network, but I haven't found discussion of who they were or how he ran them. Could King have to HT what Walsingham was to Elizabeth I?
Marie, I hope your grandson is feeling better.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 11:04:34 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 8:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry Hilary, I know very little about the Countess Alice Montagu. I'm afraid I'vd paid much less attention to the individuals of Henry VI's reign.

Nico, thanks for the good wishes for my grandson. He actually has scarlet fever so was very poorly earlier in the week. The antibiotics are working and he's tons better now, thanks, but dreadful trying to get the stuff down him as it's really nasty.
Anyhow, I m afraid I really can't spare the time to go any further with these interesting discussions, and I don't think it's helpful trying to squash posts into fraught moments anyway, so I'm afraid I'm saying bye to you all again for however long.
Best wishes to all,
Marie

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 8:31 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 8:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry Hilary, I know very little about the Countess Alice Montagu. I'm afraid I'vd paid much less attention to the individuals of Henry VI's reign.

Nico, thanks for the good wishes for my grandson. He actually has scarlet fever so was very poorly earlier in the week. The antibiotics are working and he's tons better now, thanks, but dreadful trying to get the stuff down him as it's really nasty.
Anyhow, I m afraid I really can't spare the time to go any further with these interesting discussions, and I don't think it's helpful trying to squash posts into fraught moments anyway, so I'm afraid I'm saying bye to you all again for however long.
Best wishes to all,
Marie

And I do hope the poor little boy gets better fast. H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 8:31 pm, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

On Thursday, March 7, 2019, 8:30 pm, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Sorry Hilary, I know very little about the Countess Alice Montagu. I'm afraid I'vd paid much less attention to the individuals of Henry VI's reign.

Nico, thanks for the good wishes for my grandson. He actually has scarlet fever so was very poorly earlier in the week. The antibiotics are working and he's tons better now, thanks, but dreadful trying to get the stuff down him as it's really nasty.
Anyhow, I m afraid I really can't spare the time to go any further with these interesting discussions, and I don't think it's helpful trying to squash posts into fraught moments anyway, so I'm afraid I'm saying bye to you all again for however long.
Best wishes to all,
Marie

The other person of interest in this is Thomas Cosyn from Corpus Christi, who was Eleanor Talbot's chaplain. He may have heard some interesting confessions. Cosyn was from Norfolk, but was he part of the London cousin family? If he had an ethical question about something in a confession, he could discuss it with a senior cleric, such as Stillington. If Stillington have personal knowledge of the precontract, perhaps that is how he found out.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 13:56:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And just to make it even more exciting, remember Adam Moleyns was one of the ones ho recommended Thomas Vaughan for citizenship? Well the lesser Montagues (Alice's cousins) seem to have married into the Moleyns family in the 1460s. They were from Berkshire which of course is where Bisham is. One day we will unravel it?
If you're still there, Marie, do you know much about our attainted Countess - Warwick's mother? H

iOn Thursday, 7 March 2019, 13:32:20 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary:I keep coming back to that letter I attached which was written in the Autumn of 1464 and said that the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriage. Why didn't Edward deal with them more harshly unless he secretly wanted them to find an impediment (but not Eleanor of course that would have been too much of a scandal)? That must have scared EW and stayed with her forever. She perhaps felt secure after the birth of an heir, but if he was ailing and only a ten year old left ...........? Her family could have been working on putting these contingency plans in place for years. And though she wasn't as prominent in London as Edward she was patron of some of the Guilds, I recall?
The fact the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriages does raise the question again about EW's insecurity over the legitimacy of her children. If the council had tried to annul it in 1464, when Edward was King they could try again once he was dead. That brings to mind the story of her possible involvement in the execution of the Earl of Desmond and his sons. I question elements of it, especially about the sons whose names are not known (I would have thought the names would have been recorded if it were true, and even if they had existed at all), but there is no doubt about his fate, so there may have been element of truth about her involvement. If she was insecure about her son's legitimacy, she would have panicked when Edward died suddenly. It also reopens the question again about who knew about the precontract. If it didn't emerge in 1464, that suggests that only a small number of people close to Eleanor were aware of it. Did they not come forward on her instructions? If so, that could indicate that it may have been Eleanor who may have rejected Edward. Perhaps because she misunderstood the consequences of vows made in verbo presenta, or because she was disgusted by Edward's relationship with her cousin Somerset (if that was true).
Hilary: I do think Oliver King was an informer - he could have been in the pay of Louis? We know Louis loved people who could speak good French. He waxed lyrical about Warwick, in fact Warwick seems to have been very much admired by the European community, including the Pope. As for the rest, I reckon there's still more to find out to make it hall hang together. Onwards and upwards!!

I wouldn't put it past him to King to spy for the French and possibly recruit other spies. By the time HT emerged, he may have been seasoned in espionage.. The Somerset connection is relevant as King, Cosyn and Beaumont all did well ecclesiastically in the Bath and Wells diocese. Beaumont and Cosyn were much younger than King; so he was probably some sort of mentor for them, then introduced them to spying, especially in their old Yorkist circles. Both Beaumont and Cosyn had meteoric rises, the former dating from around the time Brampton switched his loyalty. So much is said about HT's complex spy network, but I haven't found discussion of who they were or how he ran them. Could King have to HT what Walsingham was to Elizabeth I?
Marie, I hope your grandson is feeling better.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 11:04:34 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

Hi,
Hilary:I keep coming back to that letter I attached which was written in the Autumn of 1464 and said that the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriage. Why didn't Edward deal with them more harshly unless he secretly wanted them to find an impediment (but not Eleanor of course that would have been too much of a scandal)? That must have scared EW and stayed with her forever. She perhaps felt secure after the birth of an heir, but if he was ailing and only a ten year old left ...........? Her family could have been working on putting these contingency plans in place for years. And though she wasn't as prominent in London as Edward she was patron of some of the Guilds, I recall?
The fact the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriages does raise the question again about EW's insecurity over the legitimacy of her children. If the council had tried to annul it in 1464, when Edward was King they could try again once he was dead. That brings to mind the story of her possible involvement in the execution of the Earl of Desmond and his sons. I question elements of it, especially about the sons whose names are not known (I would have thought the names would have been recorded if it were true, and even if they had existed at all), but there is no doubt about his fate, so there may have been element of truth about her involvement. If she was insecure about her son's legitimacy, she would have panicked when Edward died suddenly. It also reopens the question again about who knew about the precontract. If it didn't emerge in 1464, that suggests that only a small number of people close to Eleanor were aware of it. Did they not come forward on her instructions? If so, that could indicate that it may have been Eleanor who may have rejected Edward. Perhaps because she misunderstood the consequences of vows made in verbo presenta, or because she was disgusted by Edward's relationship with her cousin Somerset (if that was true).
Hilary: I do think Oliver King was an informer - he could have been in the pay of Louis? We know Louis loved people who could speak good French. He waxed lyrical about Warwick, in fact Warwick seems to have been very much admired by the European community, including the Pope. As for the rest, I reckon there's still more to find out to make it hall hang together. Onwards and upwards!!

I wouldn't put it past him to King to spy for the French and possibly recruit other spies. By the time HT emerged, he may have been seasoned in espionage.. The Somerset connection is relevant as King, Cosyn and Beaumont all did well ecclesiastically in the Bath and Wells diocese. Beaumont and Cosyn were much younger than King; so he was probably some sort of mentor for them, then introduced them to spying, especially in their old Yorkist circles. Both Beaumont and Cosyn had meteoric rises, the former dating from around the time Brampton switched his loyalty. So much is said about HT's complex spy network, but I haven't found discussion of who they were or how he ran them. Could King have to HT what Walsingham was to Elizabeth I?
Marie, I hope your grandson is feeling better.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 11:04:34 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

Indeed. This is becoming like that book where you had to follow clues to find a silver hare!
You know if the Council were looking for evidence in 1464 then at that time Stillington would have been very much around as one of them as Keeper of the Privy Seal, a post he held from 1461-67. So why didn't he have an attack of conscience then, sounds as though the Council would have backed him? So there are I reckon a couple of options. Firstly, he genuinely didn't know at that point, or secondly, he did know, but the Talbot family hushed him in some way. I've often wondered if the 'hush money' was the lucrative marriage of his daughter to John Hampton? After all, John Newton was the family lawyer and Eleanor's brother-in-law. If the Visitations are right, then that would mean Juliana's children, through their descent from the Nevilles, would be related to the royal family. H
On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 20:03:29 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

The other person of interest in this is Thomas Cosyn from Corpus Christi, who was Eleanor Talbot's chaplain. He may have heard some interesting confessions. Cosyn was from Norfolk, but was he part of the London cousin family? If he had an ethical question about something in a confession, he could discuss it with a senior cleric, such as Stillington. If Stillington have personal knowledge of the precontract, perhaps that is how he found out.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 13:56:31 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

And just to make it even more exciting, remember Adam Moleyns was one of the ones ho recommended Thomas Vaughan for citizenship? Well the lesser Montagues (Alice's cousins) seem to have married into the Moleyns family in the 1460s. They were from Berkshire which of course is where Bisham is. One day we will unravel it?
If you're still there, Marie, do you know much about our attainted Countess - Warwick's mother? H

iOn Thursday, 7 March 2019, 13:32:20 GMT, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi,
Hilary:I keep coming back to that letter I attached which was written in the Autumn of 1464 and said that the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriage. Why didn't Edward deal with them more harshly unless he secretly wanted them to find an impediment (but not Eleanor of course that would have been too much of a scandal)? That must have scared EW and stayed with her forever. She perhaps felt secure after the birth of an heir, but if he was ailing and only a ten year old left ...........? Her family could have been working on putting these contingency plans in place for years. And though she wasn't as prominent in London as Edward she was patron of some of the Guilds, I recall?
The fact the Council were trying to find a way to annul the Woodville marriages does raise the question again about EW's insecurity over the legitimacy of her children. If the council had tried to annul it in 1464, when Edward was King they could try again once he was dead. That brings to mind the story of her possible involvement in the execution of the Earl of Desmond and his sons. I question elements of it, especially about the sons whose names are not known (I would have thought the names would have been recorded if it were true, and even if they had existed at all), but there is no doubt about his fate, so there may have been element of truth about her involvement. If she was insecure about her son's legitimacy, she would have panicked when Edward died suddenly. It also reopens the question again about who knew about the precontract. If it didn't emerge in 1464, that suggests that only a small number of people close to Eleanor were aware of it. Did they not come forward on her instructions? If so, that could indicate that it may have been Eleanor who may have rejected Edward. Perhaps because she misunderstood the consequences of vows made in verbo presenta, or because she was disgusted by Edward's relationship with her cousin Somerset (if that was true).
Hilary: I do think Oliver King was an informer - he could have been in the pay of Louis? We know Louis loved people who could speak good French. He waxed lyrical about Warwick, in fact Warwick seems to have been very much admired by the European community, including the Pope. As for the rest, I reckon there's still more to find out to make it hall hang together. Onwards and upwards!!

I wouldn't put it past him to King to spy for the French and possibly recruit other spies. By the time HT emerged, he may have been seasoned in espionage.. The Somerset connection is relevant as King, Cosyn and Beaumont all did well ecclesiastically in the Bath and Wells diocese. Beaumont and Cosyn were much younger than King; so he was probably some sort of mentor for them, then introduced them to spying, especially in their old Yorkist circles. Both Beaumont and Cosyn had meteoric rises, the former dating from around the time Brampton switched his loyalty. So much is said about HT's complex spy network, but I haven't found discussion of who they were or how he ran them. Could King have to HT what Walsingham was to Elizabeth I?
Marie, I hope your grandson is feeling better.
Nico

On Thursday, 7 March 2019, 11:04:34 GMT, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
My memory, and even my sources, mag be mistaken on Ms Forster as I'm having to rely on old memories. At hone I would usually check facts before posting. I'm sure there will be a link, though, considering the London connection. The

Sorry Hilary, I know very little about the Countess Alice Montagu. I'm afraid I'vd paid much less attention to the individuals of Henry VI's reign.

Nico, thanks for the good wishes for my grandson. He actually has scarlet fever so was very poorly earlier in the week. The antibiotics are working and he's tons better now, thanks, but dreadful trying to get the stuff down him as it's really nasty.
Anyhow, I m afraid I really can't spare the time to go any further with these interesting discussions, and I don't think it's helpful trying to squash posts into fraught moments anyway, so I'm afraid I'm saying bye to you all again for however long.
Best wishes to all,
Marie

Hi Doug, see my note to Nico about the part played by London in the Readeption. Yes, you're right, EW came out of Sanctuary in April 1484 and her daughters were at court. I found a note yesterday from Richard to Scotland proposing that his 'niece Anne' should be married to a younger brother of the King of Scots, so he clearly thought they had some standing, like his own illegitimate children.
But perhaps EW had got into something deeper than she imagined; I can't see her controlling anything or anyone except her own family when she was Queen. Still a lot of digging to do. H
On Friday, 8 March 2019, 06:23:18 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,

Just to help wrap this up. Yes, according to the Statutes after the death of a KG, the other Companions had to be notified in time for an election to be held within six weeks of the death. But it's really worth perusing the other volume to see what actually happened in practice. From what I can see, Edward IV had never bothered about this very onerous 6-week rule, and new knights were often elected in bulk at a convenient time. Quite apart from anything else, it didn't leave enough time for word of deceased foreign Companions to reach England. In 1478 (possibly triggered by the Burgundians having failed to officially inform the Order of Duke Charles' death or return his copy of the Statutes), a chapter voted in a new rule whereby Garter King of Arms was to go to the country concerned to pick up the copy of the Statutes, and if no official notification of the death had been received "by the space of six months after the common rumour and noise of the decease", then Garter should go over and obtain both the copy of the Statutes and an official certificate of death.

The rules regarding rescheduling of the St. George's Day feast if it fell within two weeks of Easter were similarly being observed with more leeway than the Statutes had envisaged (I think these rules may be only set out in full in the original Norman French Statutes (with addendums), which Ashmole does not include - for these see Lisa Jefferson's article in EHR 1994). The Statutes say the event is to be moved to the Sunday two weeks after Easter provided that does not fall between 24 and 26 April or 1 to 4 May. The reasons given for this rule are that knights should not be required to travel during Easter week, and that there were important religious feasts in late April and early May which also had to be avoided. In practice, in 'our' period these delayed feasts could be postponed much longer than two weeks after Easter, right up until the end of May, and on one occasion when Edward just happened to have spent the offending Easter at Windsor with most of his KGs in attendance, he ignored the rule and just got on with the Garter ceremonies later in Easter week.

So what I'm saying is that it really helps to get a feel for what was actually going on within the Order at the time of Edward IV's death. The same applies to the difficulties he had reallocating one or two of the most prestigious stalls, and the individuals whose names were popping up in successive nominations and must have considered themselves to be on an unofficial waiting list.

I would have thought Oliver King would have had someone who could deputise for him. I don't really see that as a problem, and certainly there were elections (and therefore occasional chapters) held during Richard's reign, so someone was taking notes.

You are quite right that the current St. George's Chapel was still only at foundation building stage when Edward IV died. The old chapel (on the site of the present Prince Albert Memorial Chapel) was therefore still being used by the Order at this period, and nothing and nobody was out in the rain.

Marie

In 1484, Richard's nieces included Anne St. Leger (7-8), Anne daughter of Edward IV (8-9) and Anne of Suffolk who was older. Gairdner, quoted by Chris Phillips via Brown's history of Nottinghamshire, connects Anne of Suffolk to James III's son (the Duke of Rothesay, later James IV).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... []
Sent: 08 March 2019 11:09
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King


Hi Doug, see my note to Nico about the part played by London in the Readeption. Yes, you're right, EW came out of Sanctuary in April 1484 and her daughters were at court. I found a note yesterday from Richard to Scotland proposing that his 'niece Anne' should be married to a younger brother of the King of Scots, so he clearly thought they had some standing, like his own illegitimate children.

But perhaps EW had got into something deeper than she imagined; I can't see her controlling anything or anyone except her own family when she was Queen. Still a lot of digging to do. H

On Friday, 8 March 2019, 06:23:18 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:



Hilary,
In regards to your last paragraph, weren't most of the Woodvilles more or less allied with Richard in 1485? Dorset was being held in France after being prevented from returning to England, so the only active Woodville that I know of was Sir Edward, who'd absconded with ships and money in 1483. I also would have thought it would have been a kiss of death for Tudor's hopes to have the French become known as being involved on his behalf. There's always bribery, of course but, once again, I would think that if any Frenchmen were involved, they'd stay well in the background.
Doug

Hilary wrote:
Doug/Carol/Nico this may help a bit.
Forster was a Londoner, his father was Stephen Forster, Lord Mayor in 1455. He is linked with Oliver King, Thomas Vaughan, Philip Malpas and the Beaumonts. I'll give you the full details (for Nico particularly) in a separate post, probably tomorrow. Oh what an incestuous crowd! When he died in 1487 he left his estates in Bedfordshire (which had once belonged to Humphrey Duke of Gloucester) to none other than Archbishop Morton. His sister was married to another Morton, Robert a barrister of York - who fought for Richard at Bosworth and described him as an excellent King (we have his will).
If you do a Google you'll see that Chris Skidmore (sorry!) has him as being allied to Hastings over some lands in St Albans - I have yet to locate all this but Skidmore loves quoting More which rather puts me off - and says that he was arrested because he was part of a Hastings plot. I don't have Skidmore's book but may venture to Kindle it in desperation.
What I do begin to think - and I'd love Nico's view on this - is that there was some sort of covert movement in London, probably allied to the French, the Woodvilles, HT - all or some. Which is why I reckon if HT had made a dash for London some of these folk there might well have let him in. And it could well be to do with the cultural/economic differences between London (remember nearly half the population of the UK) and the rest. Edward IV, probably through laziness as much as anything, and EW had wooed London.. Richard was an outsider, he might as well have been Scottish or Welsh. The merchants, the wealthy, were worried. Richard really should have spent a bit more time in London at the very beginning. Sorry, just my view.




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

Marie,
Were the records complete, would we have a list of those nominated by the
knights, but not selected by the king? For Richard's reign, of course, many
of those nominated would, I presume, be repeats from those nominated during
Edward's reign; not selected, but still hopeful.
The whole process reminds me a little of what I've read about how various
committees were staffed by members of the Venetian Grand Council -
complicated, to say the least.
Doug
Hope things have calmed down a bit and the little one's not quite so cranky.

Marie wrote:
"Hi Doug,
It's complicated. A nice neat list but deceptively neat because compiled
from incomplete and h clear sources. Certainly there were free places
following the executions of Hastings, Rivers and Buckingham, and there were
Garter elections during Richard's reign, but the outcome of these is not
entirely clear. Hilary will gather what is known on that subject from
Anstis.
There is also the political aspect of Richard trying to give away RDoY's
place - Edward had found difficulty giving away Clarence's stall and so even
if RdoY were dead, and known to be dead, Richard might have avoided offering
his stall, or been very careful who he offered it to.
And, as Hilary says, there was a long list of hopefuls. Every election the
knights had a list of names to chose from, and candidates often had to wait
years to get elected. Richard would have wished to maintain the appearance
of continuity with Edward's reign and reward not only his own followers but
also those who had been at the top of the list when Edward died.
Also the choice was not entirely down to the King. Each knight put forward
three names. The King looked at the nominations and made his choice(s) from
them, generally choosing people who a lot of votes and had been on the lists
in previous elections, and avoiding candidates who had few votes so as not
to turn the idea that it was an election by the members into a complete
farce.
So really, even had we a full record of the Garter elections of Richard's
reign, that reign was too short for us to tell the full list of folks he had
in mind for promotion to the Order."

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

Hi Hilary,

Just to help wrap this up. Yes, according to the Statutes after the death of a KG, the other Companions had to be notified in time for an election to be held within six weeks of the death. But it's really worth perusing the other volume to see what actually happened in practice. From what I can see, Edward IV had never bothered about this very onerous 6-week rule, and new knights were often elected in bulk at a convenient time. Quite apart from anything else, it didn't leave enough time for word of deceased foreign Companions to reach England. In 1478 (possibly triggered by the Burgundians having failed to officially inform the Order of Duke Charles' death or return his copy of the Statutes), a chapter voted in a new rule whereby Garter King of Arms was to go to the country concerned to pick up the copy of the Statutes, and if no official notification of the death had been received "by the space of six months after the common rumour and noise of the decease", then Garter should go over and obtain both the copy of the Statutes and an official certificate of death.

The rules regarding rescheduling of the St. George's Day feast if it fell within two weeks of Easter were similarly being observed with more leeway than the Statutes had envisaged (I think these rules may be only set out in full in the original Norman French Statutes (with addendums), which Ashmole does not include - for these see Lisa Jefferson's article in EHR 1994). The Statutes say the event is to be moved to the Sunday two weeks after Easter provided that does not fall between 24 and 26 April or 1 to 4 May. The reasons given for this rule are that knights should not be required to travel during Easter week, and that there were important religious feasts in late April and early May which also had to be avoided. In practice, in 'our' period these delayed feasts could be postponed much longer than two weeks after Easter, right up until the end of May, and on one occasion when Edward just happened to have spent the offending Easter at Windsor with most of his KGs in attendance, he ignored the rule and just got on with the Garter ceremonies later in Easter week.

So what I'm saying is that it really helps to get a feel for what was actually going on within the Order at the time of Edward IV's death. The same applies to the difficulties he had reallocating one or two of the most prestigious stalls, and the individuals whose names were popping up in successive nominations and must have considered themselves to be on an unofficial waiting list.

I would have thought Oliver King would have had someone who could deputise for him. I don't really see that as a problem, and certainly there were elections (and therefore occasional chapters) held during Richard's reign, so someone was taking notes.

You are quite right that the current St. George's Chapel was still only at foundation building stage when Edward IV died. The old chapel (on the site of the present Prince Albert Memorial Chapel) was therefore still being used by the Order at this period, and nothing and nobody was out in the rain.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Just to help wrap this up. Yes, according to the Statutes after the death of a KG, the other Companions had to be notified in time for an election to be held within six weeks of the death. But it's really worth perusing the other volume to see what actually happened in practice. From what I can see, Edward IV had never bothered about this very onerous 6-week rule, and new knights were often elected in bulk at a convenient time. Quite apart from anything else, it didn't leave enough time for word of deceased foreign Companions to reach England. In 1478 (possibly triggered by the Burgundians having failed to officially inform the Order of Duke Charles' death or return his copy of the Statutes), a chapter voted in a new rule whereby Garter King of Arms was to go to the country concerned to pick up the copy of the Statutes, and if no official notification of the death had been received "by the space of six months after the common rumour and noise of the decease", then Garter should go over and obtain both the copy of the Statutes and an official certificate of death.

The rules regarding rescheduling of the St. George's Day feast if it fell within two weeks of Easter were similarly being observed with more leeway than the Statutes had envisaged (I think these rules may be only set out in full in the original Norman French Statutes (with addendums), which Ashmole does not include - for these see Lisa Jefferson's article in EHR 1994). The Statutes say the event is to be moved to the Sunday two weeks after Easter provided that does not fall between 24 and 26 April or 1 to 4 May. The reasons given for this rule are that knights should not be required to travel during Easter week, and that there were important religious feasts in late April and early May which also had to be avoided. In practice, in 'our' period these delayed feasts could be postponed much longer than two weeks after Easter, right up until the end of May, and on one occasion when Edward just happened to have spent the offending Easter at Windsor with most of his KGs in attendance, he ignored the rule and just got on with the Garter ceremonies later in Easter week.

So what I'm saying is that it really helps to get a feel for what was actually going on within the Order at the time of Edward IV's death. The same applies to the difficulties he had reallocating one or two of the most prestigious stalls, and the individuals whose names were popping up in successive nominations and must have considered themselves to be on an unofficial waiting list.

I would have thought Oliver King would have had someone who could deputise for him. I don't really see that as a problem, and certainly there were elections (and therefore occasional chapters) held during Richard's reign, so someone was taking notes.

You are quite right that the current St. George's Chapel was still only at foundation building stage when Edward IV died. The old chapel (on the site of the present Prince Albert Memorial Chapel) was therefore still being used by the Order at this period, and nothing and nobody was out in the rain.

Marie

Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

I agree Doug!
I can find no relationship between Cosyn and Stillington whatsoever. Cosyn seems to have patrons in the Heydons of Baconsthrorpe Norfolk who just happened to be Receiver Generals for the Staffords (i.e. Buckingham) in Hunts. And of course Elizabeth Talbot, his other patron was Duchess there. Other than that his origins are quite hard to track down. Still trying. H
On Monday, 11 March 2019, 13:35:15 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

On Monday, March 11, 2019, 5:04 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

The next JAH is published in July ...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 March 2019 13:35
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King



Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

Ah ........  I hope it's as good as his last. Which was very good. He liveth yet!  H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 11, 2019, 5:04 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

The next JAH is published in July ...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 March 2019 13:35
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King

 

Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

They have corrected that, among other errata, but Amazon haven't yet.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... []
Sent: 11 March 2019 17:18
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King


Don't think much of the publisher's blurb referring to the "infamous Richard III."
A J

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:11 PM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Ah ........ I hope it's as good as his last. Which was very good. He liveth yet! H

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Monday, March 11, 2019, 5:04 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

The next JAH is published in July ...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 March 2019 13:35
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King



Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

Don't think much of the publisher's blurb referring to the "infamous Richard III."

A J

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:11 PM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Ah ........ I hope it's as good as his last. Which was very good. He liveth yet! H


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

On Monday, March 11, 2019, 5:04 pm, Stephen stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

The next JAH is published in July ...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 11 March 2019 13:35
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Oliver King



Stephen wrote:
"We shall know in a few months time."

Well, that's nice and cryptic! Looking forward to it becoming less so!
Doug

Doug wrote:
"Why should Elizabeth Woodville be insecure over her children's legitimacy
after the Council had accepted that she and Edward were legally married?
FWIW, her, and her relatives', actions after Edward IV died can be fully
explained by her being replaced as the person in charge of young Edward by
Richard. As that didn't occur until Edward's last illness, until then
Elizabeth, and her relatives, could expect to remain exactly where they were
when Edward IV was on the throne  close relatives of the reigning monarch
and his wife in Edward IV's case and close relatives of the monarch and his
mother in the case of young Edward..
I like your ideas about King, especially his possibly being Tudor's
spymaster. Someone had to do it, even if Tudor likely kept a close eye on
whoever it was.
If only to make sure what happened to his predecessor didn't repeat
itself...
Presuming this might have been the path by which Stillington attained his
proofs, I have a couple of questions. Would Thomas Cosyn have ever been
situated so as to come under Stillington's jurisdiction? Or would it have
been a case of him seeking guidance from the nearest available Bishop?"

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

I did look in the Lateran and there isn't one instance of Stillington and Thomas Cosyn together. I'm still not sure whether Stillington is the one mentioned in Precontract issues,because he originally knew the secret, or because he was the one given the job of drafting TR. About like the current Attorney Generals, who pronounce and advise on the legality of Government policy. H
On Tuesday, 12 March 2019, 21:26:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

There is also a Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford.

I didn't know he had any ready for publication! Looking forward to it.
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"The next JAH is published in July ..."

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

Note, Lady Margaret's and Lady Margaret are different! The former is at Cambridge and the latter at Oxford. And one has Erasmus in the list and the other Rowan Williams, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

Best wishes

Christine

Note, Lady Margaret's and Lady Margaret are different! The former is at Cambridge and the latter at Oxford. And one has Erasmus in the list and the other Rowan Williams, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

Best wishes

Christine

Hi,
Doug wrote: Of the four possibilities presented in the link: defect of form, contract, will and capacity, we can rule out defect of form as clandestine marriages were recognized both by the Church and civil law. Actually, Edward's marriage to Eleanor Butler could have been annulled on the basis of defect of will (on Edward's part), but that would have required Edward to first acknowledge the marriage. It seems that the best option for those Council members would have been the last two reasons: defect of will and capacity; but the first would have required Edward to admit he wasn't serious about the ceremony he participated in with Eleanor and the second would have meant that the Council would have had to have proof of Edward's marriage to Eleanor in order to have his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville annulled. AFAIK, neither of those conditions could have been met. I can't prove it, but it does seem to me that if rumors were about concerning Edward having contracted a previous marriage, those rumors, and not the one about his supposed illegitimacy, would have been current during the Re-Adeption.
As for a death-bed confession on Eleanor's part; I'm a bit shaky on the religious aspects but, as Eleanor was the injured party, she wouldn't be confessing any sin, would she? Other than not coming forward when Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth at any rate. And if the ceremony had consisted only of an exchange of vows, which was entirely legal, there may have only been Eleanor and Edward present; which would leave her with trying to prove the king a liar based only on her words. OTOH, such a statement when she knew she was dying could, and would, be accepted as being truthful on her part.
You make a good point about the readeption. Despite the rumours about Edward's alleged illegitimacy, there was no mention of him being a even a suspected bigamist, and considering the unpopularity of the Woodvilles, that is something their enemies would have jumped on. I would think that the most likely reasons given for attempting to annul the marriage centered around legality and trying to dredge up a foreign precontract. Since nothing solid was ever negotiated, the Council had nothing to work with.

If Eleanor talked to Cosyn about the precontract, I think it is less likely as a confession than as something she may have told him, most likely in confidence, but one that Cosyn eventually (possibly after her death) felt the need to discuss with someone with higher authority. That may not have been Stillington directly, but someone he told may have passed it on to him. After she died, at the time, there was little that could have been done while Edward was still King.

Nico


On Wednesday, 13 March 2019, 10:50:01 GMT, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I did look in the Lateran and there isn't one instance of Stillington and Thomas Cosyn together. I'm still not sure whether Stillington is the one mentioned in Precontract issues,because he originally knew the secret, or because he was the one given the job of drafting TR. About like the current Attorney Generals, who pronounce and advise on the legality of Government policy. H
On Tuesday, 12 March 2019, 21:26:29 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Christine,

The link is for Lady Margaret's at Cambridge, so it's the one we want. Do you know if the two are named for the same Lady Margaret?

Doug

Who didn't realize there were any other British Rowans besides Mr. Atkinson. Well, besides the trees.

Christine wrote:

Note, Lady Margaret's and Lady Margaret are different! The former is at Cambridge and the latter at Oxford. And one has Erasmus in the list and the other Rowan Williams, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

Rowan is more usually a girl's name, though my great-nephew has it.

Best wishes

Christine

Christine,

The link is for Lady Margaret's at Cambridge, so it's the one we want. Do you know if the two are named for the same Lady Margaret?

Doug

Who didn't realize there were any other British Rowans besides Mr. Atkinson. Well, besides the trees.

Christine wrote:

Note, Lady Margaret's and Lady Margaret are different! The former is at Cambridge and the latter at Oxford. And one has Erasmus in the list and the other Rowan Williams, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch.   H 
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch. H
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

AJ according to Anstis there were the right number of stalls for the right number of knights during Richard's reign. The POW stall could not be filled because there wasn't a POW to fill it after the death of EOM.
BTW I made sure I said you quoted, not claimed. Cheers H 
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:59:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch.   H 
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

You wrote:"The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived."
Confusing wording then. As far as I know I am the first to suggest that the boys achievements may still have been hanging at Windsor at the end of Richard's reign. So I guess the quote would have been me quoting myself.

To the other issue of stall assignments, here is my summary:

These are the stalls known to have been vacant at the beginning of King Richard's reign 
1.  Prince's Stall (Edward, s. of Edward IV having moved to the Sovereign's stall, being no longer either Sovereign or Prince of Wales, he was probably not returned to this stall, although the Prince's stall had been occupied by men who were not the Prince of Wales in the recent past)
Filled by: _____

2.  John, K. of Portugal (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  Anstis believed that this K. was continued during K. Richard's reign, although not installed until the next reign.

3.  Frederick, D. of Urbino (died September 1482)
Filled by: Sir Richard Ratcliff (Vinc. MS n. 417) But he being slain at Bosworth on the part of this Usurper, his Name occurrs [sic] not in the Windsor-Tables."

4.  Ferdinand, K. of Castile & Aragon (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  probably to be found in the record of a more complicated exchange of stalls, since Anstis wrote that his election was now absolutely annulled, in that his Stall was filled in his [K. Richard's] first Year. Vinc. MS n. 417 records that the Duke of Suffolk was removed to the third [stall] of the Sovereign's in Place of the King of Naples. However, since Ferdinand, K. of Naples did not die until 25 January 1493/4 & there is no remark about his having changed stalls, it is presumed that Ferdinand V, K. of Castile & Aragon was intended.

5.  Henry, Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483)
Filled by: _____

6.  William, Ld Hastings (beheaded 13 June 1483)
Filled by: the Earl of Surry came in the Room of the Lord Hastings. MS in Mus. Ashm. n. 1135

7.  Anthony, 2nd Earl Rivers (beheaded 25 June 1483)
Filled by:  Sir John Coniers is mentioned in the Windsor [French] Tables to be Successor to the Earl Rivers

AND:
John (Howard) the Duke of Norfolk, moved into the stall lately occupied by King Richard, when Duke of Gloucester. [Vinc. MS n. 417]
Francis, Viscount Lovell assumed the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Suffolk [Vinc. MS n. 417]

Regarding the successor to the Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483), the French Tables (the later scribe) indicated that he was followed by Conte de Arundell, Thomas who, however, did not succeed to that title until his father died in 1488, and is also recorded in the French Tables as Messire Thomas Seigneur Mautravers in a different stall. Neither Beltz nor Shaw show a successor to the Earl of Essex, while Fellowes, without citing any source, named the Earl of Surrey, in conflict with the reference cited by Anstis, which placed Surrey in the stall formerly occupied by Lord Hastings.

Following the Scrutiny discussed above, it appears that Sir Thomas Burgh was installed in the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Norfolk.

Two more stalls became vacant later in 1483:
Sir William Parre died between August and November 1483 (The Coronation&) and was succeeded by Sir William Tunstall, according to the French Tables
Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was beheaded on 2 Nov 1483 and succeeded, according to Anstis, by Thomas, 2nd Lord Stanley.

Anstis noted that Lord Stanley could not be elected till after the beheading the Duke of Bucks, in whose Seat he was placed; and Sir Richard Tunstall was elected after the Death of Sir William Par. It should be noted, however, that the French Tables (later scribe), indicated that Lord Stanley succeeded to the Stall of Lord Hastings, in conflict with Anstis's source.

It seems, that there must have been at least one more Election held during King Richard's reign, sometime after November, which resulted in the election of Sir Richard Tunstall and perhaps Thomas, Lord Stanley. It is also plausible that after his creation as Prince of Wales, and knighting by his father at York in September 1483, Richard's son Edward may have been elected to the Prince's stall; and that he does not appear in any record through failure of actual installation before his death in April 1484.

Anstis's research, then, supports the list published by Ashmole of the Knights of the Garter created during King Richard's reign. In order of seniority, Ashmole listed them as
219. Sir John Conyers, Kt.
220. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, after Lord Treasurer of England, and Duke of Norfolk.
221. Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell.
222. Sir Richard Ratclift, Kt.
223. Sir Thomas Burgh, Kt. after Lord Burgh.
224. Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley, after Earl of Darby.
225. Sir Richard Tunstall, Kt.

219-222 were apparently elected & installed between 28 June and 6 July 1483.
223 was elected following the single Scrutiny whose record survives.
224 & 225, based on Anstis's evidence, were elected on some date no earlier than November 1483.
It is probably worth repeating that there is no surviving information whatsoever about the stall of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's younger son) other than that his stall was filled again about 1487 by Sir William Stanley.

Or, in other words, due to the lack of surviving records, it is impossible to tell whether stalls not filled until the reign of Henry VII were truly vacant.



































































































On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:19 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

AJ according to Anstis there were the right number of stalls for the right number of knights during Richard's reign. The POW stall could not be filled because there wasn't a POW to fill it after the death of EOM.
BTW I made sure I said you quoted, not claimed. Cheers H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:59:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch. H
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

AJ I did say most of this in my report to Marie.
My problem is that once Edward V was King he was no longer Prince of Wales, so if he wasn't POW or King then where would he have had a stall and he is no longer a member of the royal family per se as an 'extra'? ROY is potentially a different case but I did list the appointments that could potentially, according to the very biased Anstis, have filled that. As far as I know no-one who was not POW ever occupied the POW stall because that would make more than 24 Knights. The Sovereign and the POW are outside that.  I'm going by Ashmole here. There's no way they could. I would be very wary of anything written in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century.. To disagree that Richard was anything but a wicked uncle was a potential death sentence. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 15:30:16 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

You wrote:"The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived."
Confusing wording then. As far as I know I am the first to suggest that the boys achievements may still have been hanging at Windsor at the end of Richard's reign. So I guess the quote would have been me quoting myself.

To the other issue of stall assignments, here is my summary:

These are the stalls known to have been vacant at the beginning of King Richard's reign 
1.  Prince's Stall (Edward, s. of Edward IV having moved to the Sovereign's stall, being no longer either Sovereign or Prince of Wales, he was probably not returned to this stall, although the Prince's stall had been occupied by men who were not the Prince of Wales in the recent past)
Filled by:  _____

2.  John, K. of Portugal (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  Anstis believed that this K. was continued during K. Richard's reign, although not installed until the next reign.

3.  Frederick, D. of Urbino (died September 1482)
Filled by: Sir Richard Ratcliff (Vinc. MS n. 417) But he being slain at Bosworth on the part of this Usurper, his Name occurrs [sic] not in the Windsor-Tables."

4.  Ferdinand, K. of Castile & Aragon (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  probably to be found in the record of a more complicated exchange of stalls, since Anstis wrote that his election was now absolutely annulled, in that his Stall was filled in his [K. Richard's] first Year.  Vinc. MS n. 417 records that the Duke of Suffolk was removed to the third [stall] of the Sovereign's in Place of the King of Naples. However, since Ferdinand, K. of Naples did not die until 25 January 1493/4 & there is no remark about his having changed stalls, it is presumed that Ferdinand V, K. of Castile & Aragon was intended.

5.   Henry, Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483)
Filled by: _____

6.   William, Ld Hastings (beheaded 13 June 1483)
Filled by: the Earl of Surry came in the Room of the Lord Hastings. MS in Mus. Ashm.. n. 1135  

7.   Anthony, 2nd Earl Rivers (beheaded 25 June 1483)
Filled by:  Sir John Coniers is mentioned in the Windsor [French] Tables to be Successor to the Earl Rivers

AND:
John (Howard) the Duke of Norfolk, moved into the stall lately occupied by King Richard, when Duke of Gloucester. [Vinc. MS n. 417]
Francis, Viscount Lovell assumed the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Suffolk [Vinc. MS n. 417]

Regarding the successor to the Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483), the French Tables (the later scribe) indicated that he was followed by Conte de Arundell, Thomas who, however, did not succeed to that title until his father died in 1488, and is also recorded in the French Tables as Messire Thomas Seigneur Mautravers in a different stall. Neither Beltz nor Shaw show a successor to the Earl of Essex, while Fellowes, without citing any source, named the Earl of Surrey, in conflict with the reference cited by Anstis, which placed Surrey in the stall formerly occupied by Lord Hastings.

Following the Scrutiny discussed above, it appears that Sir Thomas Burgh was installed in the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Norfolk.

Two more stalls became vacant later in 1483:
Sir William Parre died between August and November 1483 (The Coronation&) and was succeeded by Sir William Tunstall, according to the French Tables
Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was beheaded on 2 Nov 1483 and succeeded, according to Anstis, by Thomas, 2nd Lord Stanley.

Anstis noted that Lord Stanley could not be elected till after the beheading the Duke of Bucks, in whose Seat he was placed; and Sir Richard Tunstall was elected after the Death of Sir William Par. It should be noted, however, that  the French Tables (later scribe), indicated that Lord Stanley succeeded to the Stall of Lord Hastings, in conflict with Anstis's source.

It seems, that there must have been at least one more Election held during King Richard's reign, sometime after November, which resulted in the election of Sir Richard Tunstall and perhaps Thomas, Lord Stanley. It is also plausible that after his creation as Prince of Wales, and knighting by his father at York in September 1483, Richard's son Edward may have been elected to the Prince's stall; and that he does not appear in any record through failure of actual installation before his death in April 1484.

Anstis's research, then, supports the list published by Ashmole of the Knights of the Garter created during King Richard's reign. In order of seniority, Ashmole listed them as
219. Sir John Conyers, Kt.
220. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, after Lord Treasurer of England, and Duke of Norfolk.
221. Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell.
222. Sir Richard Ratclift, Kt.
223. Sir Thomas Burgh, Kt. after Lord Burgh.
224. Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley, after Earl of Darby.
225. Sir Richard Tunstall, Kt.

219-222 were apparently elected & installed between 28 June and 6 July 1483.
223 was elected following the single Scrutiny whose record survives.
224 & 225, based on Anstis's evidence, were elected on some date no earlier than November 1483.
It is probably worth repeating that there is no surviving information whatsoever about the stall of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's younger son) other than that his stall was filled again about 1487 by Sir William Stanley.

Or, in other words, due to the lack of surviving records, it is impossible to tell whether stalls not filled until the reign of Henry VII were truly vacant.



































































































On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:19 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

AJ according to Anstis there were the right number of stalls for the right number of knights during Richard's reign. The POW stall could not be filled because there wasn't a POW to fill it after the death of EOM.
BTW I made sure I said you quoted, not claimed. Cheers H 
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:59:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch.   H 
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

 

I knew nothing about this until this morning. I reckon Margaret Beaufort endowed them both and they evolved with slightly different names. The professors listed go back to nearly the right time, so the Oxford women's college isn't really connected.

Rowan is more usually a girl's name, though my great-nephew has it.

Best wishes

Christine

Christine,

The link is for Lady Margaret's at Cambridge, so it's the one we want. Do you know if the two are named for the same Lady Margaret?

Doug

Who didn't realize there were any other British Rowans besides Mr. Atkinson. Well, besides the trees.

Christine wrote:

Note, Lady Margaret's and Lady Margaret are different! The former is at Cambridge and the latter at Oxford. And one has Erasmus in the list and the other Rowan Williams, before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

There were others than the current Prince of Wales who had filled the Prince's stall in the years before Richard's reign. If you look through the sources, you will find them. I'm sorry, I have other research to do than look this stuff up again. Here are the works I consulted in writing my summary; the older books are mostly available online:

References:
The historie of that most famous saint and souldier of Christ Iesus; St. George of Cappadocia asserted from the fictions, in the middle ages of the Church, and opposition of the present. The institution of the most noble Order of St. George, named the Garter. A catalogue of all the knights thereof, from the first institution, to this present: as also of the principall officers thereunto belonging. The second edition, corrected and enlarged by Pet. Heylyn. [Peter Heylyn, or Heylin] London, 1633.
The Institution, Laws & Ceremonies Of the most Noble Order of the Garter. London. Elias Ashmole, of the Middle-Temple, Esq; Windesor Herald at Arms. MDCLXXII. [1672]

The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, From its Cover in Black Velvet, usually called The Black Book; with Notes Placed at the Bottom of the Pages, and an Introduction Prefixed by the Editor. In Two Volumes. London, MDCCXXIV. [1724] Author not identified in the book itself, but in an advertisement in Observations Introductory to an Historical Essay, upon the Knighthood of the Bath, By John Anstis, Esq; Garter Principal King of Arms, [1725]

The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle, and the Royal College, and Chapel of St George: with the Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the Most Noble Order of the Garter: including& Printed by Joseph Pote, Bookseller. MDCCXLIX. [1749]

Memorials of the Order of the Garter from its Foundation to the Present Time with Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. George Frederick Beltz, K H, Lancaster Herald. London. MDCCCXLI. [1841]

History of the Orders of the British Empire, Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, MDCCCXLII. [1842]

The Stall Plates of the Knights of the Order of the Garter 1348-1485, W H St John Hope, 1901.
The Knights of England A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of Knights Bachelors, Wm A Shaw, 1906.

The Knights of the Garter 1348-1939. With a complete list of the Stall-Plates in St George's Chapel. Edmund H Fellowes. [1939]

The Coronation of Richard III the Extant Documents. Anne F Sutton & P W Hammond (eds) (1983, 1st published in USA 1984)
The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483-1485, Rhoda Edwards (1983, 1995 reprint, Richard III Society)
Harleian MS 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond, published in three volumes and an index 1979-1983).

A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:33 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

AJ I did say most of this in my report to Marie.
My problem is that once Edward V was King he was no longer Prince of Wales, so if he wasn't POW or King then where would he have had a stall and he is no longer a member of the royal family per se as an 'extra'? ROY is potentially a different case but I did list the appointments that could potentially, according to the very biased Anstis, have filled that. As far as I know no-one who was not POW ever occupied the POW stall because that would make more than 24 Knights. The Sovereign and the POW are outside that. I'm going by Ashmole here. There's no way they could. I would be very wary of anything written in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century.. To disagree that Richard was anything but a wicked uncle was a potential death sentence. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 15:30:16 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

You wrote:"The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived."
Confusing wording then. As far as I know I am the first to suggest that the boys achievements may still have been hanging at Windsor at the end of Richard's reign. So I guess the quote would have been me quoting myself.

To the other issue of stall assignments, here is my summary:

These are the stalls known to have been vacant at the beginning of King Richard's reign 
1.  Prince's Stall (Edward, s. of Edward IV having moved to the Sovereign's stall, being no longer either Sovereign or Prince of Wales, he was probably not returned to this stall, although the Prince's stall had been occupied by men who were not the Prince of Wales in the recent past)
Filled by: _____

2.  John, K. of Portugal (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  Anstis believed that this K. was continued during K. Richard's reign, although not installed until the next reign.

3.  Frederick, D. of Urbino (died September 1482)
Filled by: Sir Richard Ratcliff (Vinc. MS n. 417) But he being slain at Bosworth on the part of this Usurper, his Name occurrs [sic] not in the Windsor-Tables."

4.  Ferdinand, K. of Castile & Aragon (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  probably to be found in the record of a more complicated exchange of stalls, since Anstis wrote that his election was now absolutely annulled, in that his Stall was filled in his [K. Richard's] first Year. Vinc. MS n. 417 records that the Duke of Suffolk was removed to the third [stall] of the Sovereign's in Place of the King of Naples. However, since Ferdinand, K. of Naples did not die until 25 January 1493/4 & there is no remark about his having changed stalls, it is presumed that Ferdinand V, K. of Castile & Aragon was intended.

5.  Henry, Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483)
Filled by: _____

6.  William, Ld Hastings (beheaded 13 June 1483)
Filled by: the Earl of Surry came in the Room of the Lord Hastings. MS in Mus. Ashm.. n. 1135

7.  Anthony, 2nd Earl Rivers (beheaded 25 June 1483)
Filled by:  Sir John Coniers is mentioned in the Windsor [French] Tables to be Successor to the Earl Rivers

AND:
John (Howard) the Duke of Norfolk, moved into the stall lately occupied by King Richard, when Duke of Gloucester. [Vinc. MS n. 417]
Francis, Viscount Lovell assumed the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Suffolk [Vinc. MS n. 417]

Regarding the successor to the Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483), the French Tables (the later scribe) indicated that he was followed by Conte de Arundell, Thomas who, however, did not succeed to that title until his father died in 1488, and is also recorded in the French Tables as Messire Thomas Seigneur Mautravers in a different stall. Neither Beltz nor Shaw show a successor to the Earl of Essex, while Fellowes, without citing any source, named the Earl of Surrey, in conflict with the reference cited by Anstis, which placed Surrey in the stall formerly occupied by Lord Hastings.

Following the Scrutiny discussed above, it appears that Sir Thomas Burgh was installed in the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Norfolk.

Two more stalls became vacant later in 1483:
Sir William Parre died between August and November 1483 (The Coronation&) and was succeeded by Sir William Tunstall, according to the French Tables
Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was beheaded on 2 Nov 1483 and succeeded, according to Anstis, by Thomas, 2nd Lord Stanley.

Anstis noted that Lord Stanley could not be elected till after the beheading the Duke of Bucks, in whose Seat he was placed; and Sir Richard Tunstall was elected after the Death of Sir William Par. It should be noted, however, that the French Tables (later scribe), indicated that Lord Stanley succeeded to the Stall of Lord Hastings, in conflict with Anstis's source.

It seems, that there must have been at least one more Election held during King Richard's reign, sometime after November, which resulted in the election of Sir Richard Tunstall and perhaps Thomas, Lord Stanley. It is also plausible that after his creation as Prince of Wales, and knighting by his father at York in September 1483, Richard's son Edward may have been elected to the Prince's stall; and that he does not appear in any record through failure of actual installation before his death in April 1484.

Anstis's research, then, supports the list published by Ashmole of the Knights of the Garter created during King Richard's reign. In order of seniority, Ashmole listed them as
219. Sir John Conyers, Kt.
220. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, after Lord Treasurer of England, and Duke of Norfolk.
221. Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell.
222. Sir Richard Ratclift, Kt.
223. Sir Thomas Burgh, Kt. after Lord Burgh.
224. Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley, after Earl of Darby.
225. Sir Richard Tunstall, Kt.

219-222 were apparently elected & installed between 28 June and 6 July 1483.
223 was elected following the single Scrutiny whose record survives.
224 & 225, based on Anstis's evidence, were elected on some date no earlier than November 1483.
It is probably worth repeating that there is no surviving information whatsoever about the stall of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's younger son) other than that his stall was filled again about 1487 by Sir William Stanley.

Or, in other words, due to the lack of surviving records, it is impossible to tell whether stalls not filled until the reign of Henry VII were truly vacant.



































































































On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:19 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

AJ according to Anstis there were the right number of stalls for the right number of knights during Richard's reign. The POW stall could not be filled because there wasn't a POW to fill it after the death of EOM.
BTW I made sure I said you quoted, not claimed. Cheers H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:59:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch. H
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Trouble is they're all seventeenth century and later!  Sorry but I just think it's a red herring. And I don't mean to play down your work. H 
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 16:47:48 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

There were others than the current Prince of Wales who had filled the Prince's stall in the years before Richard's reign. If you look through the sources, you will find them. I'm sorry, I have other research to do than look this stuff up again. Here are the works I consulted in writing my summary; the older books are mostly available online:

References:
The historie of that most famous saint and souldier of Christ Iesus; St. George of Cappadocia asserted from the fictions, in the middle ages of the Church, and opposition of the present. The institution of the most noble Order of St. George, named the Garter. A catalogue of all the knights thereof, from the first institution, to this present: as also of the principall officers thereunto belonging. The second edition, corrected and enlarged by Pet. Heylyn. [Peter Heylyn, or Heylin] London, 1633.
The Institution, Laws & Ceremonies Of the most Noble Order of the Garter. London. Elias Ashmole, of the Middle-Temple, Esq; Windesor Herald at Arms. MDCLXXII. [1672]

The Register Of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, From its Cover in Black Velvet, usually called The Black Book; with Notes Placed at the Bottom of the Pages, and an Introduction Prefixed by the Editor. In Two Volumes. London, MDCCXXIV. [1724] Author not identified in the book itself, but in an advertisement in Observations Introductory to an Historical Essay, upon the Knighthood of the Bath, By John Anstis, Esq; Garter Principal King of Arms, [1725]

The History and Antiquities of Windsor Castle, and the Royal College, and Chapel of St George: with the Institution, Laws, and Ceremonies of the Most Noble Order of the Garter: including& Printed by Joseph Pote, Bookseller. MDCCXLIX. [1749]

Memorials of the Order of the Garter from its Foundation to the Present Time with Biographical Notices of the Knights in the Reigns of Edward III. and Richard II. George Frederick Beltz, K H, Lancaster Herald. London. MDCCCXLI. [1841]

History of the Orders of the British Empire, Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas, MDCCCXLII. [1842]

The Stall Plates of the Knights of the Order of the Garter 1348-1485, W H St John Hope, 1901.
The Knights of England A Complete Record from the Earliest Time to the Present Day of the Knights of all the Orders of Chivalry in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of Knights Bachelors, Wm A Shaw, 1906.

The Knights of the Garter 1348-1939. With a complete list of the Stall-Plates in St George's Chapel. Edmund H Fellowes. [1939]

The Coronation of Richard III the Extant Documents. Anne F Sutton & P W Hammond (eds) (1983, 1st published in USA 1984)
The Itinerary of King Richard III 1483-1485, Rhoda Edwards (1983, 1995 reprint, Richard III Society)
Harleian MS 433, edited by Rosemary Horrox & P W Hammond, published in three volumes and an index 1979-1983).

A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:33 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

AJ I did say most of this in my report to Marie.
My problem is that once Edward V was King he was no longer Prince of Wales, so if he wasn't POW or King then where would he have had a stall and he is no longer a member of the royal family per se as an 'extra'? ROY is potentially a different case but I did list the appointments that could potentially, according to the very biased Anstis, have filled that. As far as I know no-one who was not POW ever occupied the POW stall because that would make more than 24 Knights. The Sovereign and the POW are outside that.  I'm going by Ashmole here. There's no way they could. I would be very wary of anything written in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century.. To disagree that Richard was anything but a wicked uncle was a potential death sentence. H
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 15:30:16 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

You wrote:"The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived."
Confusing wording then. As far as I know I am the first to suggest that the boys achievements may still have been hanging at Windsor at the end of Richard's reign. So I guess the quote would have been me quoting myself.

To the other issue of stall assignments, here is my summary:

These are the stalls known to have been vacant at the beginning of King Richard's reign 
1.  Prince's Stall (Edward, s. of Edward IV having moved to the Sovereign's stall, being no longer either Sovereign or Prince of Wales, he was probably not returned to this stall, although the Prince's stall had been occupied by men who were not the Prince of Wales in the recent past)
Filled by:  _____

2.  John, K. of Portugal (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  Anstis believed that this K. was continued during K. Richard's reign, although not installed until the next reign.

3.  Frederick, D. of Urbino (died September 1482)
Filled by: Sir Richard Ratcliff (Vinc. MS n. 417) But he being slain at Bosworth on the part of this Usurper, his Name occurrs [sic] not in the Windsor-Tables."

4.  Ferdinand, K. of Castile & Aragon (his previous election void, as demonstrated by his name included in the recorded Scrutiny, for Omission of Installation within the limited Time)
Filled by:  probably to be found in the record of a more complicated exchange of stalls, since Anstis wrote that his election was now absolutely annulled, in that his Stall was filled in his [K. Richard's] first Year.  Vinc. MS n. 417 records that the Duke of Suffolk was removed to the third [stall] of the Sovereign's in Place of the King of Naples. However, since Ferdinand, K. of Naples did not die until 25 January 1493/4 & there is no remark about his having changed stalls, it is presumed that Ferdinand V, K. of Castile & Aragon was intended.

5.   Henry, Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483)
Filled by: _____

6.   William, Ld Hastings (beheaded 13 June 1483)
Filled by: the Earl of Surry came in the Room of the Lord Hastings. MS in Mus. Ashm.. n. 1135  

7.   Anthony, 2nd Earl Rivers (beheaded 25 June 1483)
Filled by:  Sir John Coniers is mentioned in the Windsor [French] Tables to be Successor to the Earl Rivers

AND:
John (Howard) the Duke of Norfolk, moved into the stall lately occupied by King Richard, when Duke of Gloucester. [Vinc. MS n. 417]
Francis, Viscount Lovell assumed the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Suffolk [Vinc. MS n. 417]

Regarding the successor to the Earl of Essex (died 4 April 1483), the French Tables (the later scribe) indicated that he was followed by Conte de Arundell, Thomas who, however, did not succeed to that title until his father died in 1488, and is also recorded in the French Tables as Messire Thomas Seigneur Mautravers in a different stall. Neither Beltz nor Shaw show a successor to the Earl of Essex, while Fellowes, without citing any source, named the Earl of Surrey, in conflict with the reference cited by Anstis, which placed Surrey in the stall formerly occupied by Lord Hastings.

Following the Scrutiny discussed above, it appears that Sir Thomas Burgh was installed in the stall lately occupied by the Duke of Norfolk.

Two more stalls became vacant later in 1483:
Sir William Parre died between August and November 1483 (The Coronation&) and was succeeded by Sir William Tunstall, according to the French Tables
Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham was beheaded on 2 Nov 1483 and succeeded, according to Anstis, by Thomas, 2nd Lord Stanley.

Anstis noted that Lord Stanley could not be elected till after the beheading the Duke of Bucks, in whose Seat he was placed; and Sir Richard Tunstall was elected after the Death of Sir William Par. It should be noted, however, that  the French Tables (later scribe), indicated that Lord Stanley succeeded to the Stall of Lord Hastings, in conflict with Anstis's source.

It seems, that there must have been at least one more Election held during King Richard's reign, sometime after November, which resulted in the election of Sir Richard Tunstall and perhaps Thomas, Lord Stanley. It is also plausible that after his creation as Prince of Wales, and knighting by his father at York in September 1483, Richard's son Edward may have been elected to the Prince's stall; and that he does not appear in any record through failure of actual installation before his death in April 1484.

Anstis's research, then, supports the list published by Ashmole of the Knights of the Garter created during King Richard's reign. In order of seniority, Ashmole listed them as
219. Sir John Conyers, Kt.
220. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, after Lord Treasurer of England, and Duke of Norfolk.
221. Francis Lovell, Viscount Lovell.
222. Sir Richard Ratclift, Kt.
223. Sir Thomas Burgh, Kt. after Lord Burgh.
224. Thomas Stanley, Lord Stanley, after Earl of Darby.
225. Sir Richard Tunstall, Kt.

219-222 were apparently elected & installed between 28 June and 6 July 1483.
223 was elected following the single Scrutiny whose record survives.
224 & 225, based on Anstis's evidence, were elected on some date no earlier than November 1483.
It is probably worth repeating that there is no surviving information whatsoever about the stall of Richard, Duke of York (Edward's younger son) other than that his stall was filled again about 1487 by Sir William Stanley.

Or, in other words, due to the lack of surviving records, it is impossible to tell whether stalls not filled until the reign of Henry VII were truly vacant.



































































































On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:19 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

AJ according to Anstis there were the right number of stalls for the right number of knights during Richard's reign. The POW stall could not be filled because there wasn't a POW to fill it after the death of EOM.
BTW I made sure I said you quoted, not claimed. Cheers H 
On Friday, 15 March 2019, 13:59:15 GMT, A J Hibbard ajhibbard@... [] <> wrote:

 

I have to clarify what I said. I did not claim that the achievements of Edward's sons were still hanging. I said it was a possibility. In the absence of evidence we simply can't rule out that possibility. I raised it as a counter-argument to the assumption that the boys had been murdered. The point of the apparently empty stall throughout Richard's reign formerly assigned to the deceased Earl of Essex, is that there was a stall that Edward V could have been moved to, while his brother remained in his original stall (not filled again until about 1487)..

Again, I'm talking about a possibility, based on the fact that there were 2 empty stalls that there is no evidence Richard attempted to fill during his reign.
A J

On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 5:11 AM Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:
 

I'd add a couple of other things Doug.
The first is with regard to the claim, quoted by AJ, that young Edward's banner and that of ROY were still there on their stalls at Windsor when HT arrived. Edward's banner would have automatically been removed from the POW stall on the death of his father because he was no longer POW, he was King! If you think about it, the POW stall had spent most of the fifteenth century empty; it's previous occupant had been the future king Henry V who vacated it in 1413. There's no way his banner as king would still be there because we do know Richard held at least one, and probably two, ceremonies as king himself. ROY's might still have been unoccupied if Richard was reserving it, for say, Warwick, but according to Anstis the number of new knights fits the number of vacancies.
Secondly, this proves once again, that nothing, absolutely nothing about the Yorkist period can be taken at face value. It's all been corrupted beyond belief by the magnificent HT and his team. How many times have we had discussions on here about the fact that Edward didn't hold many Garter ceremonies after the death of Clarence because he couldn't bear to see his empty stall? Firstly, it was filled pretty quickly, but secondly, Edward had held hardly any ceremonies since 1461 and Richard and Clarence (and most others) had always sent their apologies. My guess is he found it plain boring and wasn't prepared to devote three days to it, unlike HT and MB (carried in her golden chair) who loved dressing up to prove they were royalty. And again in the past we've used Edward's absence to demonstrate his possible ill health. Well if this was the case he must have been ill for the whole of his reign.
Yet another example of how we have to tear everything up and start from scratch.   H 
On Thursday, 14 March 2019, 19:06:19 GMT, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote: