Ralph Shaa

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.

Their execution on Monday 28 November 1468, five months after Lady Eleanor's death, was cited in the Eleanor paperback (ch.4,n.23 and ch.17,n.28 pp.302/323), referring to Alford and Poiner, sourced to a published letter from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton in The Plumpton Letters and Papers (p.40).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Nicholas Brown nico11238@... []
Sent: 21 June 2019 17:21
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa


Hi Mary, I have read that story. I think it was in one of J-AH's books, but I can't remember all the details. Were they murdered or arrested then executed. If the latter, what were they accused of?

The marriage between Richard of Shrewsbury and Anne Mowbray at such an early age has always struck me as rather strange. As you say, RoS might be useful for a foreign alliance, especially since he was heir to throne if Edward V died.
Nico
On Friday, 21 June 2019, 16:38:52 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:


There was the story about Elizabeth, Duchess of Norfolk accompanying Margaret to Burgundy for her marriage to Charles the Bold. Eleanor died while Elizabeth was away and when she was travelling home two of her servants were killed. Could that have been a warning to her not to speak out about what she knew about Eleanor's marriage? Also Edward marrying R of Y to her daughter at such an early age, I know that did happen but surely a more prestigious foreign marriage might have been more appropriate.

Mary

Hi,
I think it is possible that the Shaa family and other could have had some involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair. Along with Brampton, Beaumont, Cosyn and King who we know were connected, the chain includes Bishop Beauchamp, Thomas Shaa and William Worsley. The whole PW story seems very merchant orientated. Even the confession has young PW working at the market in Antwerp and when he gets ill he stays at a skinner's house, next to the 'house of the English nation,' which must be something to do with English merchants. Surely, if apprentices got ill, they would be sent home, so who is paying for PW? When PW recovers he ends up working for a craftsman who lives near Brampton. Whoever PW was, I have never believed that happened by chance.

The name of Beaumont's book was Peter Warbrick/Warbreck. There was a village and manor of Warbreck near what is now Blackpool, but I don't think we ever matched him to a specific person. Was Piers Warburton involved in the conspiracy?
Some of Cecily's servants were PW supporters, and it would be unlikely that they would be actively involved in a rebellion that she disapproved of, which leads me to conclude that she was a behind the scenes player. Going back to the recent posts about the precontract (many of which yahoo so kindly deleted from my account), Cecily does come across as a capricious character and I have long suspected that she had a very difficult relationship with Edward, but her visit to Sandwich was borderline treason and imho speaks volumes about her. Edward was her son and the King, while Warwick was a nephew and rebel. Even if she was going to see George, he had betrayed Edward by joining up with Warwick, and giving a marriage that Edward expressly forbade her public blessing comes across as not just disloyal, but calculatedly spiteful to Edward. I suspect the problem went back a long way between the two of them, and Edward was cautious about letting Cecily in on anything about his personal life, which may have led to the whole problem of the secret marriage in the first place. If Edward felt nothing but his mother's constant disapproval, he knew he could expect it with his courtship of Eleanor (who was from an enemy family), so he may have found a solution in a clandestine wedding. If he or Stillington had to discuss it with anyone later on, they would have been well aware of the danger of discussing it with anyone else, including and probably especially Cecily. For that reason, I believe that Stilllington would have had an awareness that it was Edward whose service he was in, and would therefore have been careful to ensure that the secret was kept. However, I do think it possible that George may have discovered something about Eleanor from Catesby or someone from her social network in the South West.

Nico




On Thursday, 20 June 2019, 10:21:25 BST, hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

With all this discussion on the summer of 1483 it reminded me that I knew very little about Ralph Shaa, who preached at Paul's Cross endorsing Richard's kingship. I knew he was related to the two Shaa Lord Mayors, brother of one and uncle of the other, but not much else other than he'd studied at Cambridge and that the family hailed from Dukinfield in Cheshire. And he died in 1484.

So I was quite surprised when I looked.

Shaa seemed to come into prominence in the late 1470s, when he was awarded prebendaries at Caddington, Bedfordshire (near St Albans again) and Grantham Borealis, which is in the Salisbury diocese. He was recommended to the latter by EW's chum Bishop Beauchamp. He would have been quite old at the time, at least in his forties, so a late starter?

On doing a further search I discovered that Thomas Shaa, probably another nephew, was in the service of William Worsley, Dean of St Pauls. Mrs Shaa used to wash and make the sheets as no women were allowed as servants. Now William Worsley is of course the same person as the one pardoned by HT for his involvement in the Perkin Warbeck affair, and a sometime colleague of Oliver King, William Cosyn and Thomas Beaumont. If you recall Beaumont's book the name that looked like Perkin Warbeck could have been Piers Warburton. Warburton is just down the road from Dukinfield in Cheshire.

So how did Ralph Shaa, who had been sponsored by a great 'friend' of EW, end up preaching against her sons? And was Thomas Shaa, servant to the Dean, a channel between the London merchants and whatever was going on with PW?

Any ideas? H

27

No, this happened in 1468, such that they were absent when Lady Eleanor conveniently died on 30th June. The treasonous correspondence is mentioned in the references and source I have mentioned:
When Elizabeth Talbot was in Flanders in 1468, some of her servants reportedly called upon the exiled Beauforts, provoking the wrath of Edward IV (ch.4, n.23).
Chronicles of the White Rose of York (Hearne's Fragment) pp.20-1: The fact that the two men were of the Norfolk affinity is attested by a letter of 9 December 1468 from Godfrey Greene to Sir William Plumpton.. This reports that one Alford and one Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, were beheaded on Monday 28 November 1468. J.Kirby ed. The Plumpton Letters and Papers, Cambridge, 1996, p.40 (ch.17, n.28).

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 23 June 2019 17:56
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa




Stephen,
It seems to me that the question that needs to be answered is whether the servants were indeed in treasonous correspondence. In another post Mary wrote that everyone had spies, so it doesn't seem that strange to me that some of the Duke and Duchess of Norfolk's servants mightn't have served in that capacity  and been caught at it.
Then there's the timing of it. The Duchess accompanied Margaret of York to Flanders, leaving England on 23 June, 1483. Do we know when the Duchess returned? More importantly, who they (or their servants) could have encountered while out of England? Presuming, of course, that Alford and Poiner accompanied the Duke and Duchess. I've done some quick internet searches, but can't find any date for Elizabeth's return. It seems to me that we should also keep in mind what was happening between Edward and Warwick during this period. By 1468 Warwick had retired from Court and was planning the rebellion that led to the Battle of Edgecote Moor in July 1469, so there's the possibility that Edward was also keeping a close eye on anyone with Lancastrian connections.
I guess It's a matter not so much that Alford and Poiner couldn't have been executed as some sort of warning to Lady Elizabeth, but rather that there's other possibilities for their execution that need first to be disposed of.
I keep checking Barnes and Noble (bookstore) for JA-H's books, but it appears I'll have to special order em.
Doug

Stephen wrote:
The servants were charged with treasonous correspondence with the Beauforts ie to threaten Lady Elizabeth not to talk about her sister.
This worked until after Edward's death - just look at her will, particularly with reference to Cambridge.




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

Hi all,

Just back from holiday. I skimmed through the posts I missed early this morning when I couldn't sleep and made a few notes. Too much for one post, so I'll try to post them by separately subject, if they'll divide up nicely. Here is the first.

As it happens, I've been looking at the events of 1469 lately, so although they are somewhat confused, I am a lot clearer about the goings-on than I was.

The story of Edward's own bastardy may well have come from the French, as has already been suggested on the forum, and it may well be that Warwick refrained from using it (at least in 1469) although it clearly had a long-term affect on Clarence, who was repeating it before his final arrest.

The evidence strongly suggests that Warwick's plan in 1469 was simply to destroy his rivals at court and get the Woodville marriage set aside. The petition that the northern rebels used did not attack Edward IV himself, but did the usual thing of blaming all the ills of his government on his advisors, amongst whom it specifically named "the Lord Rivers, the Duchess of Bedford his wife, and their sons, Sir William Herbert the Earl of Pembroke, Humphrey Stafford the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Audley, Sir John Fogge".

Those of the above men who were caught were executed, either by the northern army or on Warwick's personal order; the Duchess of Bedford was tried for witchcraft. After capturing Edward, Warwick and Clarence simply took him to Warwick Castle and made him continue issuing warrants and decrees as though he were merely a guest and still in control. The Duchess of Bedford's witchcraft trial indicates that Warwick was seeking to annul the Woodville marriage rather than depose Edward (this is what Hicks probably means when he says there was talk at that time of Edward's issue being bastards).

However, just one week after Edward's capture the Milanese ambassador at Louis' court was told that the Earl of Warwick had "made a certain invention, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and rule does not legitimately belong to him but directly and duly belongs to the foregoing duke of Clarence." But there is no evidence that Warwick was tryng to put Clarence forward. Rather, when the country became ungovernable with Edward clearly a prisoner at Middleham, he simply let him travel to York with his brother the Archbishop as his minder, in order that he could be seen to be personally in charge of putting down the new rebellion and condemning its leader. (it was George Neville's failure to control Edward there that led to his complete release.)

So I think in 1469 Louis may have been pushing Warwick to depose Edward, but Warwick was not yet ready.

So, when Cecily visited Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich on 20 June, she probably hadn't heard anything to suggest the pair might be impugning her honour.

Why she visited them there is another question. She may have gone to try to persuade Clarence to change his mind about marrying Isabel Neville, but if so she didn't try very hard as she only dropped in for a day. Also, Edward IV seems to have been taken by surprise by the marriage, so, if his mother knew what was going on, did she not tell him? It is perhaps rather more plausible, IMO, that she disagreed with Edward on this matter and went to Sandwich to give Clarence her blessing. Almost certainly she would have had no knowledge of all that was to come afterwards, although she may have disapproved of the Woodville marriage and may - just possibly - have been happy to see it forcibly dissolved.

Big correction. Mea culpa.

I was relying on old notes I had made for Cecily's visit to Sandwich in 1469. I have now looked up the original source, which is the chronicle of a monk of Canterbury. Making allowance for one apparent slip in the numbering (possibly a transcribing error), the timeline is as follows (source, Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. W. G. Searle, Cambridge, 1902, pp. 110-111):

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury (it is not clear when he left

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury for Queenborough Castle

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville offered at St. Thomas' shrine

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him).

I suppose one could argue whether Cecily's visit might have caused Warwick and Clarence to leave Sandwich and delay their departure for Calais.

Marie

Big correction. Mea culpa.

I was relying on old notes I had made for Cecily's visit to Sandwich in 1469. I have now looked up the original source, which is the chronicle of a monk of Canterbury. Making allowance for one apparent slip in the numbering (possibly a transcribing error), the timeline is as follows (source, Christ Church, Canterbury, ed. W. G. Searle, Cambridge, 1902, pp. 110-111):

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury (it is not clear when he left

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury for Queenborough Castle

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville offered at St. Thomas' shrine

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him).

I suppose one could argue whether Cecily's visit might have caused Warwick and Clarence to leave Sandwich and delay their departure for Calais.

Marie

Hi Hilary and others,

Just one addition to the timeline - I have added the special licence for the marriage which was granted by Cardinal Bourchier (who as Archbishop of Canterbury had sole jurisdiction over ecclesiastical and spiritual matters in Calais and its marches). Also a couple of extra details which may help with discerning a narrative. I wonder, did Warwick and his brother the Archbishop of York not initially realise they would need a licence from Cardinal Bourchier for George and Isabel to wed in Calais without having banns read on three separate Sundays? You'd think they would have known, given Warwick's long association with Calais and his brother's high standing in the English church hierarchy, but their delay in seeking the licence, and Archbishop Neville's arrogant behaviour in Canterbury, are hard to fathom otherwise. Could Cecily have jogged their memories?

I'm interested that Cecily seems to have travelled to Sandwich two days behind Clarence. What was going on there?

TIMELINE

Afternoon of Wed 7 June - Clarence arrived at Canterbury

Friday 9 June - Clarence left Canterbury for Sandwich (Warwick already there), and Archbishop Neville arrived in Canterbury, where he scandalised the clergy because he had not yet offered the customary jewel to St. Thomas's shrine, and now he avoided visiting the tomb, going to the shrine of St. Augustine instead. He also went around the place carrying a cross upright, "which has never been seen before". (It is not clear when GN left Canterbury.)

Monday 12 June - Archbishop Neville blessed Warwick's new ship, the Trinity, at Sandwich in the presence of Warwick, Clarence, the Bishop of London and the Prior of Canterbury

Wednesday 14 June - Cecily arrived at Canterbury

Thursday 15 June - Cecily travelled on to Sandwich

Friday 16 June - Cecily returned to Canterbury

Saturday 17 June - Cecily still at Canterbury, where she attended Vespers

Sunday 18 June - Cecily attended High Mass and Vespers in Canterbury

Monday 19 June - Cecily left Canterbury

Wednesday 21 June - Clarence and Warwick (but not George Neville) returned to Canterbury

Thursday 22 June - Clarence and Warwick left Canterbury saying they were headed for Queenborough Castle

Sunday 25 June - At his manor of Knole (halfway between Canterbury and Queenborough) Archbishop Bourchier issued a special licence for George and Isabel to marry in the castle chapel at Calais after the issue of only one set of banns.

[27/28 June - Warwick wrote to the city of Coventry from London - source Coventry Leet Book

1 July - Thomas Stonor wrote from London to his son William asking him to get a fletcher named Kyng to make a dozen broad arrows for "a gentleman of my Lord Archbishop's of York"]

Tue 4 July - Warwick and Clarence returned to Canterbury with Archbishop Neville & the Earl of Oxford

Wed 5 July - Archbishop Neville finally offered his jewel at St. Thomas' shrine "as by agreement between the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Archbishop of York, in the presence of Richard Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Oxford

Sun 9 July - Archbishop Neville married Clarence and Isabel at Calais (this was the same day that Edward wrote brief notes to Warwick, Clarence and the Archbishop announcing that he had heard rumours about their disposition towards him, and ordering them to join him). The banns must have been issued on the same day that they were wed, I think.

Marie

It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk servants to visit those Beauforts.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: 'Doug Stamate' destama@... []
Sent: 26 June 2019 14:59
To:
Subject: Re: Ralph Shaa



Stephen,
While there's certainly food for thought in these deaths, I'm still hesitant
for fear that what we're doing is trying to see a pattern in events in order
to bolster a pre-conceived thesis when there isn't one.
The example you give for torturing servants in order to get their employers
to talk comes from the Tudor period. My understanding is that one of the
items held against the Tudors was their introduction of torture into the
English legal system where, if not unknown, information given under torture
wasn't considered legal; although I also seem to recall that there was a
special process was in place in order that, should torture be considered,
the results could be used in law. I'll have to see what I can find on it.
Doug
My birthday is next month and it looks as if one or two of JA-H's books will
be self-given "gifts"...

Stephen wrote:
"Yes it would. Torturing/ executing the servants of a noble was frequently
used to make the noble talk, such as Sir Geoffrey Pole giving evidence
against his brother Lord Montagu in 1538.
So Norfolk's two servants were executed in 1468 and the whole Mowbray family
was absent during Lady Eleanor's convenient death. Then the Duke died in
1476, again conveniently.
Incidentally, these Plumpton references are only in the paperback (2016)
Eleanor."

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

Hi,

This is not particularly a reply to this last post of yours, Stephen, but a general discussion of the 1468 stuff.

I'm afraid I can't remember exactly who has said what on this subject, but as some other members have posted, we need to remember the general political context of the arrests of the Duke of Norfolk's gentlemen, the Duchess's relationship to the Duke of Somerset (they were first cousins) and the fact that their paths almost crossed at the beginning of July 1468.

1468 is the year when Edward had a large number of people  some very prominent  arrested on suspicion of plotting with the Lancastrians. He was clearly very alarmed, though how real the plots were we shall probably never know. I'm afraid I don't have all he details to hand, but Sir Thomas Cook was (famously) one of the first arrested, just as Margaret was about to set sail. Another suspect, one Cornelius, was brought to Edward at Stratford Abbey in mid June when he was there to accompany Margaret to Margate; Cornelius was taken to the Tower and had his feet burnt with hot irons. Then there was another crisis in the autumn. This is where the Plumpton letter comes in, written in London on 9 December:-

My Lord of Oxford is comitt to the tower, and it is said kept in irons, and that he has confessed myche things;

and on Munday afore St. Andrew day [i. e. 28 November] one Alford and Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, and one Sr peirs, Skinner of London, were beheaded;

and on the morne [i.e. 29 November] was Sir Thomas Tresham arest and is comit to the tower; and it is said he was arested upon the confession of my Lo. of Oxford, and they say his livelhood, and Sir John Marney livelhood, and divers other livelhuds is given away by the king.

Also there is arest Mr. Hungerford, the heir unto the Earle of Devonshire, and many other, whose names I know nott; and it is said that Sir Edmund Hungerford is send for.

And also the yeomen of the Crowne bene riden into diverse countries to arrest men that be apeched.

Also it was told me that Sir Robt' Ughtred was send for, but I trust to God it is not so. . . .

I expect Poyntz is more accurate than Poyner. have also seen the skinner's name given as Richard Stairs, with the information that he was a famous tennis player and a retainer of the Duke of Exeter.

The Duchess of Norfolk was granted a general pardon on 7 December (the patent is dated the 8th, but the pardon covered offences up to the 7th, which will be the date the King wrote out the warrant). On 11 or 12 December a commission of oyer and terminer including all the top names was appointed to enquire into treasons in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Devon. This was the commission which sat at Salisbury in the King's presence on 16-19 January 1469 and condemned Hungerford and Courtenay, who were said to have plotted the King's death at Salisbury on 21 May 1468.

I don't know what evidence we have for the precise charges against the Duchess of Norfolk and the Duke's gentlemen, but it might be of interest that the Duchess' brother Sir Humphrey Talbot received a general pardon not long after, on 28 January 1469 (CPR, p. 122).

The dukes of Exeter and Somerset had settled in Bruges after the Lancastrian defeats of 1464, and only left the city the day before Margaret arrived (Duke Charles told them he could no longer support them, and they probably went to join QM's little court in France). So there was certainly an opportunity for Somerset to make contact with his cousin the Duchess of Norfolk while she was over.

I'm afraid, given all that was going on, I do agree with those (Doug?) who feel that there is no reason to see the Duchess of Norfolk's trouble as having anything to do with Eleanor's death. Apart from anything else, Eleanor did not die unexpectedly. She demised at least some of her estates about a month (I think  Stephen can correct me) before her death, and she also left a testament. Given that she was buried in Norwich, it looks likely that she was living with her sister at the time, and had she been fit and well would therefore probably have travelled with her to Bruges. If the Duchess was unhappy with Edward IV in 1468 and it had anything to do with Eleanor, is it not more likely to have been that he had commanded her to leave her dying sister in order to travel abroad to see his own his sister married?

The link to Desmond is very tenuous (and these sons of Desmond's rumoured to have been executed with him are impossible to identify) as the story linking his death to his statements about the royal marriage does not involve any claim that Edward was already spoken for. The person, other than Eleanor, who would have been a real threat is Stillington, and he lived to a ripe old age; so did the Duchess of Norfolk. In an period with such short life expectancy every story involves some persons who lived short lives. Surely we can do better, given that the case for Richard having waded in blood to the throne rests on very similar arguments  i.e. that all the people who might have stood in his way were conveniently dead.

Marie

Just back from holiday. I skimmed through the posts I missed early this morning when I couldn't sleep and made a few notes. Too much for one post, so I'll try to post them by separately subject, if they'll divide up nicely. Here is the first.

As it happens, I've been looking at the events of 1469 lately, so although they are somewhat confused, I am a lot clearer about the goings-on than I was.

The story of Edward's own bastardy may well have come from the French, as has already been suggested on the forum, and it may well be that Warwick refrained from using it (at least in 1469) although it clearly had a long-term affect on Clarence, who was repeating it before his final arrest.

The evidence strongly suggests that Warwick's plan in 1469 was simply to destroy his rivals at court and get the W oodville marriage set aside. The petition that the northern rebels used did not attack Edward IV himself, but did the usual thing of blaming all the ills of his government on his advisors, amongst whom it specifically named "the Lord Rivers, the Duchess of Bedford his wife, and their sons, Sir William Herbert the Earl of Pembroke, Humphrey Stafford the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Audley, Sir John Fogge".

Those of the above men who were caught were executed, either by the northern army or on Warwick's personal order; the Duchess of Bedford was tried for witchcraft. After capturing Edward, Warwick and Clarence simply took him to Warwick Castle and made him continue issuing warrants and decrees as though he were merely a guest and still in control. The Duchess of Bedford's witchcraft trial indicates that Warwick was seeking to annul the Woodville marriage rather than depose Edward (this is what Hicks probably means when he says there was talk at that time of Edward's issue being bastards).

However, just one week after Edward's capture the Milanese ambassador at Louis' court was told that the Earl of Warwick had "made a certain invention, saying that the foregoing king of England is a bastard and that the crown and rule does not legitimately belong to him but directly and duly belongs to the foregoing duke of Clarence." But there is no evidence that Warwick was tryng to put Clarence forward. Rather, when the country became ungovernable with Edward clearly a prisoner at Middleham, he simply let him travel to York with his brother the Archbishop as his minder, in order that he could be seen to be personally in charge of putting down the new rebellion and condemning its leader. (it was George Neville's failure to control Edward there that led to his complete release.)

So I think in 1469 Louis may have been pushing Warwick to depose Edward, but Warwick was not yet ready.

So, when Cecily visited Warwick and Clarence at Sandwich on 20 June, she probably hadn't heard anything to suggest the pair might be impugning her honour.

Why she visited them there is another question. She may have gone to try to persuade Clarence to change his mind about marrying Isabel Neville, but if so she didn't try very hard as she only dropped in for a day. Also, Edward IV seems to have been taken by surprise by the marriage, so, if his mother knew what was going on, did she not tell him? It is perhaps rather more plausible, IMO, that she disagreed with Edward on this matt er and went to Sandwich to give Clarence her blessing. Almost certainly she would have had no knowledge of all that was to come afterwards, although she may have disapproved of the Woodville marriage and may - just possibly - have been happy to see it forcibly dissolved.

Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and

This is not particularly a reply to this last post of yours, Stephen, but a general discussion of the 1468 stuff.

I'm afraid I can't remember exactly who has said what on this subject, but as some other members have posted, we need to remember the general political context of the arrests of the Duke of Norfolk's gentlemen, the Duchess's relationship to the Duke of Somerset (they were first cousins) and the fact that their paths almost crossed at the beginning of July 1468.

1468 is the year when Edward had a large number of people  some very prominent  arrested on suspicion of plotting with the Lancastrians. He was clearly very alarmed, though how real the plots were we shall probably never know. I'm afraid I don't have all he details to hand, but Sir Thomas Cook was (famously) one of the first arrested, just as Margaret was about to set sail. Another suspect, one Cornelius, was brought to Edward at Stratford Abbey in mid June when he was there to accompany Margaret to Margate; Cornelius was taken to the Tower and had his feet burnt with hot irons. Then there was another crisis in the autumn. This is where the Plumpton letter comes in, written in London on 9 December:-

My Lord of Oxford is comitt to the tower, and it is said kept in irons, and that he has confessed myche things;

and on Munday afore St. Andrew day [i. e. 28 November] one Alford and Poiner, gentlemen to my Lord of Northfolk, and one Sr peirs, Skinner of London, were beheaded;

and on the morne [i.e. 29 November] was Sir Thomas Tresham arest and is comit to the tower; and it is said he was arested upon the confession of my Lo. of Oxford, and they say his livelhood, and Sir John Marney livelhood, and divers other livelhuds is given away by the king.

Also there is arest Mr. Hungerford, the heir unto the Earle of Devonshire, and many other, whose names I know nott; and it is said that Sir Edmund Hungerford is send for.

And also the yeomen of the Crowne bene riden into diverse countries to arrest men that be apeched.

Also it was told me that Sir Robt' Ughtred was send for, but I trust to God it is not so. . . .

I expect Poyntz is more accurate than Poyner. have also seen the skinner's name given as Richard Stairs, with the information that he was a famous tennis player and a retainer of the Duke of Exeter.

The Duchess of Norfolk was granted a general pardon on 7 December (the patent is dated the 8th, but the pardon covered offences up to the 7th, which will be the date the King wrote out the warrant). On 11 or 12 December a commission of oyer and terminer including all the top names was appointed to enquire into treasons in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Devon. This was the commission which sat at Salisbury in the King's presence on 16-19 January 1469 and condemned Hungerford and Courtenay, who were said to have plotted the King's death at Salisbury on 21 May 1468.

I don't know what evidence we have for the precise charges against the Duchess of Norfolk and the Duke's gentlemen, but it might be of interest that the Duchess' brother Sir Humphrey Talbot received a general pardon not long after, on 28 January 1469 (CPR, p. 122).

The dukes of Exeter and Somerset had settled in Bruges after the Lancastrian defeats of 1464, and only left the city the day before Margaret arrived (Duke Charles told them he could no longer support them, and they probably went to join QM's little court in France). So there was certainly an opportunity for Somerset to make contact with his cousin the Duchess of Norfolk while she was over.

I'm afraid, given all that was going on, I do agree with those (Doug?) who feel that there is no reason to see the Duchess of Norfolk's trouble as having anything to do with Eleanor's death. Apart from anything else, Eleanor did not die unexpectedly. She demised at least some of her estates about a month (I think  Stephen can correct me) before her death, and she also left a testament. Given that she was buried in Norwich, it looks likely that she was living with her sister at the time, and had she been fit and well would therefore probably have travelled with her to Bruges. If the Duchess was unhappy with Edward IV in 1468 and it had anything to do with Eleanor, is it not more likely to have been that he had commanded her to leave her dying sister in order to travel abroad to see his own his sister married?

The link to Desmond is very tenuous (and these sons of Desmond's rumoured to have been executed with him are impossible to identify) as the story linking his death to his statements about the royal marriage does not involve any claim that Edward was already spoken for. The person, other than Eleanor, who would have been a real threat is Stillington, and he lived to a ripe old age; so did the Duchess of Norfolk. In an period with such short life expectancy every story involves some persons who lived short lives. Surely we can do better, given that the case for Richard having waded in blood to the throne rests on very similar arguments  i.e. that all the people who might have stood in his way were conveniently dead.

It is all in the paperback "Eleanor". Lady Eleanor died when her close (geographical/ emotional) family were abroad. Only the cleric (Bishop Stillington) and the other lady (Lady Elizabeth) who knew didn't die and they fell into categories that couldn't judicially be silenced. Anyone who survived infancy and violence (if male, otherwise childbirth) could still have a long life at that time.

Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating “Eleanor” for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers’ “plot” in this context.
The Talbot sisters’ mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban’s. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, “Earl of Dorset”, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two “Beauforts” were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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

On Saturday, June 29, 2019, 3:48 pm, Stephen Lark stephenmlark@... [] <> wrote:

It is all in the paperback "Eleanor". Lady Eleanor died when her close (geographical/ emotional) family were abroad. Only the cleric (Bishop Stillington) and the other lady (Lady Elizabeth) who knew didn't die and they fell into categories that couldn't judicially be silenced. Anyone who survived infancy and violence (if male, otherwise childbirth) could still have a long life at that time.

Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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

Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and I've also looked a bit more at the accusation of witchcraft against the Duchess of Bedford. As a result, I'm less confident that Warwick's use of the bastardy claim was a lie put out by Louis XI. Basically:-

Doug wrote:Marie,I have to admit I don't know that much about the events of 1468-70, but the idea that his opposition to Edward was Warwick maneuvering to get the Woodville marriage set aside makes more sense than what I have seen.And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Louis was involved!Doug

Marie replies:

Hi Doug. Matters are never very clear when it comes to this period, are they? Since I posted on this subject last I've done a little bit more on 1469 - specifically I have wrestled with the full text of the Milanese letter which is our source for Warwick spreading the rumour that Edward IV himself was illegitimate, and

Stephen,
I wonder what an actuarial statistician would make of those deaths over a
ten year period? George was executed for treason, Eleanor died after an
illness, the Desmonds (I think) were also executed, although I believe
there's quite a bit of controversy over the charges. The one person who,
literally, just dropped dead was the Mowbray Duke of Norfolk and that was in
1476.
FWIW, and it's only my personal view at this time but, while Edward may have
slept easier after these demises (presuming he even thought about the
Pre-Contract), that there was any connection seems to me to be rather
forced.
Of course, I could very well be wrong - and it wouldn't be the first time!
Doug

Stephen wrote:
"It is part of a pattern John noticed when updating Eleanor for the
paperback book; Lady Eleanor, the Desmonds, the last Mowbray Duke and
Clarence all died in the space of ten years and all knew or may have known
about the precontract.
I am sure there are many earlier examples of mistreated servants but I am
most familiar with the Pole brothers' plot in this context.
The Talbot sisters' mother, Margaret Beauchamp, was the sister of Eleanor
Beauchamp, who married the Duke of Somerset killed at St. Alban's. Their
children included Edmund, known as the 4th Duke and who was to be executed
after Tewkesbury, but who was in exile at the time, together with his
brother John, Earl of Dorset, who also returned and lost a few inches off
the top in 1471.
So these two Beauforts were the first cousins of Lady Eleanor and of the
Duchess of Norfolk. As John pointed out, they had probably known each other
well in childhood so it would be natural for the Duchess and the Norfolk
servants to visit those Beauforts."

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

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?

By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.

There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?

By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.

There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]

Marie butts in:

The detail we have about the Duke of Norfolk's death come from the Paston Letters. It's short enough, but makes the suddenness of the event very clear. Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John in London:

"Like it you to wete that, not in the most happy season for me, it is so fortuned that, whereas my Lord of Norfolk, yesterday being in good health, this night died about midnight. . . ." (vol 5, p. 245 in Gairdner's edition)

Whatever grievance they had with Edward, why didn't Warwick or Clarence defend Cecily's honour? Even if true, they had little relevance for Edward beyond embarrassment as he was legally Richard of York's son and his legitimate heir, but it would have been a huge affront to Cecily's honour, so if I find it difficult to understand why she would have any time for Warwick at all, especially it was nothing but slander. It does make me wonder if there is some substance to Michael Jones' theories. I can't imagine Cecily slumming it with an archer, but I don't rule out her having an affair with someone more senior. Possibly it was an open secret that ultimately had a catastrophic impact on the family's psychological balance, which may provide an explanation for Clarence sense of entitlement.

Hi Marie,
Quick reply. Yes I think Hicks's 'Clarence' is thorough and fair - something you don't find often with George. Edward V I haven't read - you just told me about it so I'll look it up.
The rest I would agree with from the work I did a long time ago. Having read Carpenter and her Warwickshire gentry since, one of the things she points out is that Warwick, a northerner was always a.'foreigner' to the people of Warwickshire who had had years of the Beauchamps. He didn't really make an impact because he was rarely there and Edward, as usual like to interfer and stir things up with the gentry. So choosing Coventry as a sort of rallying point was a big mistake. The people of Coventry were always fickle - and continued to be so for centuries.
I've also done a fair bit on the Yorkshire gentry and one thing you keep bumping into is the lingering memory of the Hotspur rebellion and the reprisals including particularly the execution of Archbishop Scrope. Now you would have thought that would have made them anti-Lancaster, but it also seemed to make them anti southern authority with the Percies in the lead. So easy for Warwick to harness some of that and of course the Conyers family (Robin of Redesdale?) who had also had their leader executed with Scrope and the others.
BTW going back to your post about Poiner and Alford I think it could be John Poyner. The two John Poyntz's were too old and one was a knight. The Poyners on the other hand were Shropshire gentry in the same circles as the Talbots even given the fact that the Poyntz's were from the south west and probably retainers of Somerset. Just my opinion though. H
On Monday, 1 July 2019, 12:06:26 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie you are channelling Hicks who reaches the same conclusion! Like you he thinks Warwick never really wanted to get rid of Edward - just to give him a shock - and may have tried the bastardy tactic to get him to cave in and grant some concessions.

Marie replies:

Hi Hilary,

THank you for the Stillington info - I'll come to that post next.

I have actually read my Hicks, and like you I am very impressed by his Clarence (and also pretty impressed by Edward V), making due allowance for the occasional anti-Richard bias. But I'm really not channelling him - are you responding to my last post on the subject?

By "testing the waters" I meant testing public support for deposing Edward. I'm proposing that Warwick would have been quite happy to make Clarence king if he had enough public backing.

There's an awful lot we don't know about the rebellions of 1469. The earliest of them do seem to have been pro-Percy. At what point did Warwick start to harness the northern discontent? Did he intend the northern rebels to fight a pitched battle before he reached them, or was he hoping the King would submit when he saw the strength of the combined forces ranged against him? If the latter, then he would have had some very fast thinking to do once he learned about Edgecote.

[Warwick's plan when he came over from Calais was to make for Coventry, gathering men as he went, and presumably join there with the Robin of Redesdale forces, but when he learned of Herbert and Devon's large force coming up to join the King, either he, or the leader of the northern forces, decided they had to carry on past Coventry to cut off H & D's route to Edward (then at Northampton). That could have been achieved bloodlessly had they not all crashed into each other unawares. Also, had Devon and Herbert not been separated and not speaking to each other at that point (I won't say they'd sent each other to Coventry - that would be too confusing), then they would almost certain have won the day. Upon such daft chances the fates of nations turn.]

Doug wrote to Hilary,"Barring further information, I'm tending towards the possibility that the Duke of Norfolk died of a heart attack brought about by something such as high blood pressure. While symptoms of diseases were often well-known, the causes weren't. So something such as a heart attack brought on by the effects of high blood pressure could easily be described as unexpected or sudden with later hints of poison popping up as an explanation."

Marie butts in:

The detail we have about the Duke of Norfolk's death come from the Paston Letters. It's short enough, but makes the suddenness of the event very clear. Sir John Paston wrote to his brother John in London:

"Like it you to wete that, not in the most happy season for me, it is so fortuned that, whereas my Lord of Norfolk, yesterday being in good health, this night died about midnight. . . ." (vol 5, p. 245 in Gairdner's edition)

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.

Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.

Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,

From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,

From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie

Hi, going back to the poison theories that crop up quite a lot everywhere (and I must admit that like JAH I originally thought of something suspicious when this case came to light) I just don't think we the English,did things that way. That is not until the nineteenth century when people began bumping off their spouses because poison was easier to get.
As you know, I've got a lot of records now, and the most popular way of 'knocking off' your neighbour was to pop round in armour with a couple of blokes and their swords (a la Becket). Sir Robert Mauveysin did that to his neighbour before riding off to Shrewsbury and getting killed there himself. Or therewas the stabbing in the street or, as in one case, the churchyard. And you often got away with it like Ankarette Twynyho's grandfather. Poison was a much more French/Italian thing and often viewed as the weapon of womenor witches, hence the accusations against people like Jacquetta.
I too am with the heart attack theory. My mother's family suffered from vascular disease and she and three of her brothers died in this way - completely suddenly.. In her own case she took the dog for a walk one May evening, sat down in the garden and just died in seconds. A nice way to go when you have to. So I think, given that there were no other symptoms noted, that this is probably what happened - like young people who collapse during sport. H

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 00:03:22 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Re The Duke of Norfolk's death,

From Sir John Paston's very brief description, I think we are looking for something that would not have caused any symptoms obvious to onlookers before the Duke went to bed that night. The death seems to have been not just quick but also unexpected because, as Sir JP says, he had been well that day. That would rule out sepsis or anaphylactic shock, I think, but I may be wrong. Sepsis is an extreme reaction to an infection. So there first has to be an infection, so the person generally isn't well before sepsis set in, and those signs are alarming:

RE the possibility of a heart problem, I wonder if there is any evidence that the Duke's health may have been up and down in his last years/ months/ weeks, even though he was well the day before he died. I don't know the answer at all, but I think it would be interesting to know.

Marie

Nico concluded:

As for Warwick, there was much to admire, but megalomania seems to have been his weak point, and I suspect that disappointed in not being able to use his role as Kingmaker to control Edward, he saw a more pliable protegee in Clarence. He may have started out hoping to remove the Woodvilles, but once Isabel was married to Clarence any loyalty he once had deserted him....
I tend to agree that the fact that Warwick didn't find the conclusive evidence that he sought suggests that the what he did find indicated some guilt on the Duchess of Bedford's part. Could Warwick have used it to push Edward to annul the EW marriage, or did he know that is was bigamous and there was no marriage to annul? Even if he did, at that point, he may not have cared, because Clarence as King and Isabel as Queen was a much more attractive prospect.

Doug here:

I'm ashamed to admit I'd never even thought of Marie's suggestion that the rumors were Warwick testing the waters for possibly replacing George with Edward! If that was the case, and it makes as more sense than many other ideas, it seems to have been quickly abandoned  if not by George, then by Warwick, anyway. If Warwick was thinking of going after EW's mother, then it looks to me as if his plans were as Marie suggested  to have the Woodville marriage annulled by reason of magic. FWIW, I don't think Warwick ever knew, or suspected, Edward's marriage to EW wasn't legal. If he had, why go to the bother of trying to maneuver Edward into asking for an annulment?

I do think the idea of George as king, and Isabel as Queen, undoubtedly appealed to Warwick. Although I don't know if he'd have liked the results had it come about. If Warwick thought Edward was hard to handle...

Doug

Nico wrote:

Also, I have read that Robin of Redesdale was also promoting the story [of Edward's bastardy], and he was closely associated with the Neville faction.

Marie reflects:

Just goes to show you can't trust everything you read. That letter from the Milanese ambassador is the one and only source for the use of the story of Edward's bastardy in 1469. The written petition which Robin of Redesdale's men were touting, and which Warwick took up when he and Clarence arrived back from Calais, didn't attack Edward's right to rule at all - it just attacked his evil counsellors.

Perhaps it was all Warwick's idea, and Clarence was not yet prepared to accuse his mother of adultery. Could that be the real reason Warwick couldn't make headway with it?

Nico wrote:

By the way, was there any indication of what Eleanor died of? She wrote her will when she knew she was unwell, but if her death was expected, then the family would have been less likely to go to Burgundy for Margaret's wedding.

Marie:

I doubt the Duchess of Norfolk had any real choice. Margaret had to have a suitably impressive escort, and if either Edward or Margaret herself wanted the Duchess to go over as one of Margaret's attendants it might not have gone down well if she'd refused.

I wonder whether she tried to object, and that may have prompted Edward to suspect her loyalty and keep tabs on her? So much we'll never know.

Nico wrote:

If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable?

Marie replies:

Depends on your point of view. It is certainly very official - none other than the Act of Attainder that condemned Clarence in 1478.

My own reading is that both Warwick and Clarence were highly narcissistic - which may be what attracted them to each other - and that, once the notion of Edward's bastardy had lodged in Clarence's head he couldn't get it out again; narcissists aren't good at considering other people's feelings, so maybe Clarence really didn't fully grapple with the implications for his mother. I do think that by 1470 he had got himself sold on the idea that he was the rightful king, and that he never really accepted Edward's rule afterwards (this best explains the continued plotting of Isabel's uncles the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Oxford). I suspect the Re-adeption parliament recognised this "revelation" as well, just as the Yorkists refused to acknowledge Edward of Lancaster as Henry's son (in all the legal records he is just described as Margaret's son). This would explain how, as well as why, Clarence was recognised by the Re-adeption parliament as the next royal heir after Edward of Lancaster: you know, the Lancastrian line has ended, the House of York is the next in line, and Clarence is the senior legitimate male of that house.

Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing.

Just found this Mary. Yahoo had trashed you! Very interesting. I do recall reading somewhere that all hair of the dead turns red? Never been sure about that H
On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 17:19:23 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, there is a heart problem called cardio myopathy. and a friend of mine's lovely son died at 16 of this. He was very fit played a lot of sport but he went for a bike ride with friends one day and just said he felt dizzy and dropped on the floor. At the inquest they said he would have been dead before he hit the ground. It is hereditary and nowadays the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young (CRY) tests young people between 14 and 35 to see if they are affected. His grandmother had a heart problem but she lived into her 70s but she wasn't very sporty so possibly it didn't affect her as much and his sister and nephew have had problems. So it maybe that could have been a reason for the Duke of Norfolk dying when he did. I suppose if that was so Anne Mowbray could have died of the same thing.

On Wednesday, 3 July 2019, 20:50:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico wrote:

If Clarence distanced himself from the illegitimacy accusations then it would have been in Warwick's interest to drop them, which may be why it is such a mystery as to why he would stoop so low as to make up such a horrible allegation that only victimizes his aunt who thought so highly of him. Is the source for Clarence raising it later reliable?

Marie replies:

Depends on your point of view. It is certainly very official - none other than the Act of Attainder that condemned Clarence in 1478.

My own reading is that both Warwick and Clarence were highly narcissistic - which may be what attracted them to each other - and that, once the notion of Edward's bastardy had lodged in Clarence's head he couldn't get it out again; narcissists aren't good at considering other people's feelings, so maybe Clarence really didn't fully grapple with the implications for his mother. I do think that by 1470 he had got himself sold on the idea that he was the rightful king, and that he never really accepted Edward's rule afterwards (this best explains the continued plotting of Isabel's uncles the Archbishop of York and the Earl of Oxford). I suspect the Re-adeption parliament recognised this "revelation" as well, just as the Yorkists refused to acknowledge Edward of Lancaster as Henry's son (in all the legal records he is just described as Margaret's son). This would explain how, as well as why, Clarence was recognised by the Re-adeption parliament as the next royal heir after Edward of Lancaster: you know, the Lancastrian line has ended, the House of York is the next in line, and Clarence is the senior legitimate male of that house.

Nico wrote:

"I never realised that her [sic - Edward of Lancaster] was referred to as Margaret's son in official documents. I would have though that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter."

Marie clarifies:

That was during the Yorkist period only. Pure politics, of course. It meant they didn't acknowledge him as Henry's son but they didn't have to make an actual case for his illegitimacy either.

I think - and have always thought - that the important thing about the story of Edward's bastardy for history in general is not whether it was true but whether it was influential.

The problem has been that viewpoints have been polarised somewhat between those who believe the story but then get hung up on who is now the lawful monarch, and those who disbelieve it and regard the fact that it was not true (and a mean thing to say about a lady) as the end of the matter. The point is that this story, whether true or not (and Livia Fuchs has recently shown that York returned from Rouen much earlier than Michael Jones had thought, which completely undermines the evidence for Edward's bastardy), was made public for a particular purpose, so the main question for an historian, other than a biographer of Cecily Neville of course, ought to be 'Did it influence events?' I would say the answer to that is a definite 'yes'. Not as much as Clarence would have liked, but it caused continuing instability for Edward's kingship until Clarence was finally executed. And it's pretty clear from Mancini and other sources that it was still in people's minds in 1483, and so - although we may not like the fact - may have bolstered public support for deposing Edward V.

Nicholas, I see what you're thinking when you say that, since Clarence was prepared to use such a scandalous claim, perhaps it really was true. I would modify that, though. Clarence certainly wasn't present when his elder brother was conceived, and there were definitely no photographs, so all we can say is maybe he really believed it. Warwick may have made it up and given him a very convincing spiel, or he may have found people who had been in Rouen during the period in question who had some sort of testimony to give, though again it is highly unlikely there were any witnesses to the deed. There is no official record of who the father was supposed to be. The Duke of Burgundy once called him an archer's son, and on another occasion said his real name was Blayborgne. There dcertainly is a rare English surname Blaybourne or Blayburn, but now we have the records of all the soldiers employed in France at that period online, it can be clearly seen that there were no Blayburns amongst them, and certainly none employed as members of the Rouen garrison. So the case against has become somewhat stronger as time has gone on, though of course the Duke of Burgundy may have been simply making up a lowly identity for Edward's supposed father and that wasn't who Warwick and Clarence had in mind at all, if they had anybody in mind.

Nico wrote:

"I never realised that her [sic - Edward of Lancaster] was referred to as Margaret's son in official documents. I would have though that Henry VI's acceptance of him as his son and heir would be the end of the matter."

Marie clarifies:

That was during the Yorkist period only. Pure politics, of course. It meant they didn't acknowledge him as Henry's son but they didn't have to make an actual case for his illegitimacy either.

I think - and have always thought - that the important thing about the story of Edward's bastardy for history in general is not whether it was true but whether it was influential.

The problem has been that viewpoints have been polarised somewhat between those who believe the story but then get hung up on who is now the lawful monarch, and those who disbelieve it and regard the fact that it was not true (and a mean thing to say about a lady) as the end of the matter. The point is that this story, whether true or not (and Livia Fuchs has recently shown that York returned from Rouen much earlier than Michael Jones had thought, which completely undermines the evidence for Edward's bastardy), was made public for a particular purpose, so the main question for an historian, other than a biographer of Cecily Neville of course, ought to be 'Did it influence events?' I would say the answer to that is a definite 'yes'. Not as much as Clarence would have liked, but it caused continuing instability for Edward's kingship until Clarence was finally executed. And it's pretty clear from Mancini and other sources that it was still in people's minds in 1483, and so - although we may not like the fact - may have bolstered public support for deposing Edward V.

Nicholas, I see what you're thinking when you say that, since Clarence was prepared to use such a scandalous claim, perhaps it really was true. I would modify that, though. Clarence certainly wasn't present when his elder brother was conceived, and there were definitely no photographs, so all we can say is maybe he really believed it. Warwick may have made it up and given him a very convincing spiel, or he may have found people who had been in Rouen during the period in question who had some sort of testimony to give, though again it is highly unlikely there were any witnesses to the deed. There is no official record of who the father was supposed to be. The Duke of Burgundy once called him an archer's son, and on another occasion said his real name was Blayborgne. There dcertainly is a rare English surname Blaybourne or Blayburn, but now we have the records of all the soldiers employed in France at that period online, it can be clearly seen that there were no Blayburns amongst them, and certainly none employed as members of the Rouen garrison. So the case against has become somewhat stronger as time has gone on, though of course the Duke of Burgundy may have been simply making up a lowly identity for Edward's supposed father and that wasn't who Warwick and Clarence had in mind at all, if they had anybody in mind.

Hi Nico.

I'm responding to your post about the illegitimacy claim showing Warwick in a very bad and almost childish light it if were true. You are being admirably high-minded, but really by the standards of the day it was really business as usual. The political system was an hereditary monarchy, and some dynastic flaw had to be found in order to get rid of a king. It all started with Henry IV, who had claims put about regarding Richard II's paternity and the legitimacy of his parents' marriage. And in the 1450s the Yorkists encouraged doubts about Edward of Westminster's paternity. By modern standards it's shocking, but the 15th century was a dirty and highly dangerous world where the price of losing in the political game was death, and the destruction of one's family. Could Warwick and Clarence dare rebel against Edward without being prepared to depose him?

Richard was apparently more scrupulous, and prepared to impugn the validity of Edward's marriage and the legitimacy of his children, but not prepared to openly brand his mother as an adulteress (although there do seem to have been people in the capital discussing Edward IV's illegitimacy again in the summer of 1483, and there is one carefully worded allusion in TR to public doubts surrounding Edward's "affiliation" [in its original literal sense of. whose son he was] because of his having been born abroad). The English crown at this period was rather like cursed dragon gold or the Iron Throne - desire of it corrupted hearts and drove men to self destruct.

There's no evidence that Warwick or Clarence were claiming Edward's real father to have been an archer named Blaybourne. Those assertions came from the lips of the Duke of Burgundy, whose motive was indeed to impugn Edward's nobility rather than get him deposed.

Doug wrote:

Marie:

Well, the problem is that we have no source for the incident you have in mind earlier than Mancini, who records a story he picked up in London in 1483 to the effect that the Duchess of York had been so angry at Edward's marriage that she offered to testify to the Council that he was not the Duke of York's son. I suspect some historians have suggested she may have simply said words such as you suggest, and only meant it metaphorically. Alternatively, the whole story may be balderdash. Or it may be completely true. But the fact that we have no strictly contemporary source for the tale, and that it was picked up in the feverish, unstable atmosphere of Edward V's reign, makes it rather suspect. So unfortunately, although it's possible that Cecily said something which fuelled Warwick's claims in 1469 (and this is Mike Jones' argument), nobody recorded anything of that sort at the time.

Nico wrote: Hi Doug and Marie, Sorry I haven't had time to get back to you until now, If Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery. Doug here: Apparently the first occasion for which we have record is 1483 (Mancini, I believe?). If the rumor was based on something that occurred shortly after Edward announced his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, then either it had been floating around in the background, so to speak, for twenty years or else someone may have recollected an argument they'd overheard between the Duchess and Edward. For all we know the rumor Mancini heard may have had a preface on it (something on the order of Remember that story about...) which he simply didn't include. Nico continued: If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say. Doug here: Any rumor about illegitimacy would bound to be quickly related, even if accompanied by a disclaimer about believing it. As there were rumors put out about Edward of Lancaster's legitimacy, it might almost be expected the Lancastrians would try the same trick on the Yorkist heir. The Milanese letter seems to me to be a general summary of information accepted by the writer as genuine, even though the writer obviously was relating events of which he'd received news, and had not actually witnessed any of it. Which means to me that there were rumors and those rumors were at least associated with Warwick and George and that's as far as it's safe to go.
Nico continued: It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it. Doug here: FWIW, I wonder if the illegitimacy thing wasn't thought up because there really wasn't anything else? Removing a king was a tricky business. Edward, except for his marriage, had a fairly good reputation as a ruler and administrator; nothing nearly like poor Henry VI, for example. Nor had he shown any tendencies toward the violence and arbitrary rule that had cost Richard II the throne. A lot of people, people who counted, were upset, extremely upset, by Edward's marriage, but that wasn't enough reason for them to go along with tossing him out. OTOH, as long as Edward remained king, Warwick was obviously going to be sidelined. So what we actually have is a situation where presumably someone thinks he knows best what's good for the kingdom (Warwick), but is stymied by not being the one in charge. I think it was in one of Marie's posts where she mentioned the possibility that the rumors were simply testing the waters to see how much support there may have been for replacing Edward with George. I have to admit that, the more I consider it, the more likely it seems to me that was likely the case. If Warwick's aim was to replace Edward with George, then reasons for Edward's removal were a necessity. I don't think the illegitimacy issue would have been the only reason given, but what it would provide would be a screen behind which other reasons could be hidden. Reasons such as Edward's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, Edward's marrying his in-laws into old, established families and, most importantly I think, his dumping Warwick. FWIW, the only solid evidence that I know of that would have been available at that time would have been Duchess Cecily's sworn testimony that Edward was illegitimate, and I seriously doubt Warwick had some such thing in his possession. Nico concluded:
I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable? Doug here: Since Warwick died while trying to leave the scene of the battle, I don't see how Duchess Cecily could have even made such a request. What she may have done, or so it seems to me, is express the hope that, should Warwick be caught, Edward wouldn't have him executed on the spot. Further than that, I can't say. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Nico wrote (some time ago):-f Cecily ever really did say that Edward 'wasn't his father's son,' what was reported later could easily have been a misinterpretation, with the essence of what she said being changed as it was gossiped around the court. Also, since Mancini's English wasn't very good, he could have reported whatever he heard out of context. I have always thought that if she said something like that, it would have been something along the lines that Edward wasn't fit to be his father's son. I don't think she would ever have publicly admitted to adultery.
Marie (finally back):Mancini probably spoke no English at all, so whoever he had the story from had probably given it to him in Latin.
Nico wrote:If it did reach Warwick and George's servants or soldiers when they heard them discussing using or not using Edward's illegitimacy as a strategy, it may have encouraged them to repeat it, and that could easily get out of control and very difficult to stop. Warwick and George didn't need to do much themselves; the story would have been out there. Another possibility could have been that the story was being generally repeated in Lancastrian circles and someone loyal to Warwick passed it on and he thought it would be a convenient way to dethrone Edward. I did however get the impression from Milanese ambassador's letter that Warwick and Clarence were playing an active role in circulating the rumour themselves, but the evidence is vague and it is hard to say.
Marie replies:The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.

Nico:It certainly was a different and ruthless time. If questioning someone's parentage was an accepted way of weakening someone reputation or claim to the throne, then Warwick and George weren't out of the ordinary. It 's is more the fact that it was Cecily nephew and her son that was defaming her that I find appalling. Nevertheless, you are correct that Warwick and George needed something to strong enough to depose Edward, and if that was what it took, I can see why he went for it.
Marie:You're right; it's appalling. But people like that don't see other folks' reality.

Nico wrote:The question is that if people frequently made illegitimacy slurs, by this point none had actually succeeded in being the actual factor that pushed a King off his throne, so to me it looks like a risky tactic. There were no DNA tests, and unless there was proof that both the parents were geographically separated during the conception timeline, there was no real answer to the question. Therefore, I would think that to have any hope of impugning Edward's right to the throne, Warwick or George would have to prove something like that. Without confidence of success, circulating the rumours about Cecily seems rather pointless, which makes me wonder if they did have some solid evidence, but never went as far as using it.
Marie replies:I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Nico wrote:I still can't get my head around Cecily's plea to save Warwick after Barnet. It isn't just the attack on her reputation, but the danger his rebellion caused to Edward and all her children. Is the source of it reliable
Marie:I've never heard of that, and I don't see that it can be right since Warwick was killed on the field, not captured and brought back for trial. Are you perhaps thinking of her alleged plea for Clarence to be executed privately?

Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Hilary: The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history.

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:27:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Marie replies:

There is an early 19C English translation of the French version in this volume of Archaeologia:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y7k4AQAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PR2

Livia Visser-Fuchs also published a transcript and translation of the French version in Nottingham Medieval Studies (vol 36, 1992); the title is 'Edward IV's Memoir on Paper to Charles, Duke of Burgundy'.

Though I have to admit I'm not sure if these are the self-same French versions. I cant recall the details regarding extant copies of the Arrivall, I'm afraid.

I'm pretty sure there is no suggestion in any version of the Arrivall that I have seen that Cis was pleading for Warwick. She was said to have been working on Clarence to come back to the fold, granted. That would have been do-able as Clarence was in England and Edward had already sent him an offer of reconciliation before his flight into exile, but for Cis to have tried to bring Warwick into it would surely have involved her in strenuous secret lobbying on his behalf with Edward overseas.

I'm afraid to have to say I feel this is probably one of those tricks of the memory, in which Cis's efforts to reconcile Edward and Clarence, and Clarence's efforts to reconcile Edward and Warwick, have become amalgamated.

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H

Marie replies:

There is an early 19C English translation of the French version in this volume of Archaeologia:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y7k4AQAAMAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PR2

Livia Visser-Fuchs also published a transcript and translation of the French version in Nottingham Medieval Studies (vol 36, 1992); the title is 'Edward IV's Memoir on Paper to Charles, Duke of Burgundy'.

Though I have to admit I'm not sure if these are the self-same French versions. I cant recall the details regarding extant copies of the Arrivall, I'm afraid.

I'm pretty sure there is no suggestion in any version of the Arrivall that I have seen that Cis was pleading for Warwick. She was said to have been working on Clarence to come back to the fold, granted. That would have been do-able as Clarence was in England and Edward had already sent him an offer of reconciliation before his flight into exile, but for Cis to have tried to bring Warwick into it would surely have involved her in strenuous secret lobbying on his behalf with Edward overseas.

I'm afraid to have to say I feel this is probably one of those tricks of the memory, in which Cis's efforts to reconcile Edward and Clarence, and Clarence's efforts to reconcile Edward and Warwick, have become amalgamated.

Hi,

Marie, maybe I have been seeking some sort of rationale for Warwick's behaviour, but in the end I agree with you that narcissism was at the root of his motivation in 1469-71. He was also probably also a sociopath. He may have been an impressive character in some ways, but sometimes it is the smaller more personal things that speak volumes about how low someone will go. I don't know much about Robert Welles, but I am inclined to believe his confession. The incident where Isabel and Clarence's baby died really shows his insensitivity. He didn't care about his immediate family, so why would he care about anyone else? He does seem completely devoid of empathy. I may have been too legalistic, but I can understand the purpose which was to create a reason for people to turn against Edward; it is just a shame a had to it that way. Clarence was clearly a narcissistic sociopath too, but I think their motivations were different; Warwick an egomaniac, whereas Clarence was desperate to find some role in life. Neither had any potential for loyalty. As Hilary points out, he wasted no time in being ready to dump Clarence when it suited him. I try to avoid bringing astrology to the forum, but with Warwick it shows how he was vulnerable to the worst excesses of negative Jupiter energy (egomania, excessive ambition, opinionated) coupled with delusion. I think he completely underestimated Edward, probably thinking he was a boy that could be easily manipulated, and when he couldn't he threw a hissy fit of the worst kind. Clarence, on the other hand was also egotistical, but also clearly obsessed with control aspect of power. He had one of the most ambitious charts I have ever seen. Unfortunately, he never had the talent or emotional intelligence to achieve his lofty aims. He was either blind to the fact that he was a perfect puppet for someone like Warwick or he just didn't care.

Edward had an absolute right to Warwick's loyalty, and the same went for Clarence, and Doug, you are right that it was Warwick who was the troublemaker. Edward had known Warwick so long that chances are that he had some awareness of Warwick's arrogance, and felt some determination to keep it under control. While he relied on him for administrative competence, Edward clearly had his own ideas and you may be right that he may have found alliances with other countries more advantageous than France, especially if he had designs on exploiting his claim to the French throne. I can't see how Edward wouldn't have been aware of the French negotiations, which makes Warwick's anger when they were thwarted by the EW marriage understandable. However, perhaps he did make Warwick aware, but Warwick insulted him with a paternalistic view of what was good for him and England and didn't listen. The marriage to EW did threaten Warwick and the traditional nobility, but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal.

Nico



Marie: The difference between us is that you are trying to maintain a much higher opinion of Warwick and Clarence than I ever had. Both were narcissists, and they are charming and easily get people to follow them, but basically only care about themselves. I'm currently deep in 1470, and finding it very difficult to credit that they weren't behind the Lincolnshire Rebellion as Sir Robert Welles claimed in his confession, terrifying the people of the area with claims that Edward was about to land on them and destroy them, and promising that they would join them and save them, "as farforthly as ever I couth understand, to th'entent to make the duc of Clarence king: and so it was oft and largely noised in our hoost." At the same time they were promising Edward IV they were about to join him.I think you're being too legalistic. If Warwick and Clarence could turn people against Edward with a campaign of lies such as they above - and there is evidence they were seeking to do that - then all that would be needed was a legalistic pretext that people, once averse to Edward, would accept in order to be rid of him so they could put Clarence - their new champion - on the throne.

Hilary: The first thing we learn from this about Warwick is he got over things fast; the next few days were spent playing pirate against Burgundian merchants in the channel, joining up with Fauconberg and fighting a battle against Edward's admiral Howard who came off the worst. That must have been fun for the others! Of course it endeared him to Louis, who let him land at Honfleur and who sent the Admiral of France and the Archbishop of Narbonne as a welcoming party. And it's from that point it seems that Warwick started to ignore George. Of course off he went with the two Annes to Angers to meet Louis and MOA, leaving George and Isabel in Honfleur. And the rest is history.

Hi Marie, Ross does say this is from the French version of the Arrivall (cited by Thomson) - I've not seen that.
Ross has Exeter and Oxford on his flank and Warwick in front of him; that is until Warwick holes himself up in Coventry. Edward beats off an attack from Exeter and Oxford and we don't hear of them again in the persuasion context. But Edward carries on trying to bargain. I agree about Cis wanting the family back together again, and whoever I read it from (it was ten years' ago) had her including Warwick in that. I'll have to keep looking. H
On Thursday, 18 July 2019, 21:27:52 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:According to Ross (the Arrivall), Edward marched on Warwick who withdrew into Coventry. Edward told him to come out and fight, but he refused several times, and then Edward offered him and his followers a pardon. But he still refused. After reconciliation with Clarence (Richard on the Banbury Road) Edward offered Warwick another pardon but he again refused. Edward marched for London leaving Warwick behind him.I can't remember which book I read that said this was at the instigation of Cis, but I would have thought it not unlikely. H
Marie:Hi Hilary. I'm familiar with the contents of the Arrivall.. It's actually claimed, either there or in another source, that it was the Earl of Oxford who prevented Warwick taking up Edward's offer. I have never read any claim that the offer of pardon to Warwick was Cis's idea. The Arrivall credits Clarence, who of course was Warwick's son-in-law, as the driving force fir this. Cis is said to have helped persuade Clarence to reconcile with Edward, but that's another thing - he was her son; Warwick was not.

Nicholas wrote:

Marie answers:

I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).

I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Nicholas wrote:

Marie answers:

I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).

I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.

Hi,
Hilary and Doug, I think that your assessment of Warwick is very insightful. He must have been very charismatic, but all too often those are the people who also have a high degree of narcissism and selfishness. Despite his alliance with Richard of
York, if events hadn't gone Warwick's way, I don't think he could have counted on his loyalty either. In my experience, extremely self absorbed people are often the last to notice fortunes wheel turning away from their interests and take it very hard when things don't go their way. He probably thought that keeping Edward captive and accusing Jacquetta of witchcraft would be an easy way to achieve his own agenda. When that didn't happen the result of his thwarted rage was rebellion, because of course he knew best and it wouldn't occur to him that it could ever be any other way.
For all his faults, I also would give him credit where it was due. He did train Richard and Edward well, although Richard's character seems the stronger of the two. For all his accomplishment, it would be nice to find something to good to say about him personally. He was probably charming and generous when it suited him, so likeable if you didn't get on the wrong side of him. Nevertheless, even if your hubris gets the better of you, there is no need to be tacky and a bully by slandering your aunt.

As for Clarence, I find it interesting that he was the only one of RofY's sons who hadn't trained in Warwick's household. Perhaps he had been earmarked for the clergy as a younger son, or could their have been something unsuitable about him even back then? If Clarence was treated as little prince in Ireland at such a impressionable age, that could have had an impact on a naturally self centered child. Add a few slights and he was on his way to exploiting it in later life.
Nico

Hilary: Nico I keep forgetting to add that perhaps a lot of George's ambition was fueled by his birth in Dublin and the adoration of the Irish. Given his relationship with Ireland he was bound to have picked up the story about how his father and mother were treated as king and queen of Ireland, and he was the brand new prince born there. It was I suppose the equivalent of being unofficially anointed Prince of Ireland instead of Prince of Wales.
I would have thought that anything like that would convince him that he was special, and that perhaps the wrong person was king?
Going on to Nico's post this morning about Warwick, I think, like a lot of celebrities nowadays, he had fallen in love with fame to the extent that he really believed he could achieve that which could not be achieved. It's clear from the Milan papers that he was famous throughout Europe - people were more interested in what he was doing than what twenty year-old Edward was doing. His first jolt must have been when, after capturing Edward after Edgcote, he had to let him go. Edward had now become the popular one. Secondly, Warwick was a northerner. We know the people of Warwickshire didn't like him replacing the Beauchamps and in 1471 he bumped into the same problem in London when he was trying to sell Louis's trade deal. It ended the Readeption. Like HT years' later by 1471 he was in the last chance saloon; if he took a pardon he would be humiliated, at least if he fought he'd go out with a bang..
I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Doug: You wrote ...but I think it could be true that a clash of personality, and policy ideas (especially foreign alliances) were as much a factor in Warwick's ultimate betrayal and I agree whole-heartedly! The exercise of power was much more personal than it is nowadays and the personality of those who did so always have to be taken into account. The problem is that we have so little documentary evidence from this period on which to base any evaluation of someone's personality and thus have to go by their actions (usually a fairly good indicator, IMO). Which is why, for all the good write-ups he's gotten in history, I have doubts about whether Warwick could even be considered a Yorkist. From what I've read about when Warwick did what he did, I get the impression Warwick's one and only consideration was  Warwick. He may have covered his own aims, his own physical and emotional aggrandizement, with claims of acting in the interests of the country/king, but it basically was a matter of what Warwick wanted, he got. Or else.

On Sunday, 21 July 2019, 15:59:09 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Hilary wrote: Nico, did you ever do one of your charts on Anne? She is another person I find it hard to really get a view of.. Not helped of course by the fact that she was only queen for two years - and that awful Hicks biography.I downloaded the new one on Henry VI and was a bit disappointed. It's very readable, but I would say for the novice. In terms of detail it's no Ross, Hicks (at his best) or Penn, perhaps because as Penn and JAH discovered, a whole 'life' is too big; better to examine in shorter bits and in greater depth. But then I expect people who dig like us are in a minority.
Hi Hilary,
Interesting that you ask. I was looking at Anne and Isabel's charts, along with Richard Clarence, Warwick and Anne Beauchamp. Anne is a difficult character to pin down as there is so little contemporary material to work with. I don't have a birth time for either her or Isabel, so I am experimenting with possible times and I will come back to you on this.
The Henry VI book is still on my to read list but that is a bit of a shame; I was hoping for a real in depth look at him. Even so, I think you are right that most people don't like to dig as much as we do.
Nico


On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, 13:05:45 BST, Nicholas Brown <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi,
Thanks Marie for more insights on Warwick's personality. The incidents that you describe certainly show his amorality and narcissism, something that appears to be the underlying factor with so many populist politicians, and there are a lot of these 'pseudo men of the people' in the news these days. A egotistical personality at the outset coupled with a lack of challenges in early life (often with considerable success) is a cocktail that contributes a great deal to developing this personality type. Another characteristic is that they are energized by people in general thinking highly of them, but have little capacity for inner life or ability to relate to people close to them. I would say Warwick fits those characteristics. We have seen his lack of regard for his family's welfare.
I also agree with you that Edward handled Warwick extremely badly. I have thought about the possibility that he had always found Warwick overbearing and rebelled as soon as the opportunity presented itself. Warwick and other nobles had every right to be offended by the uncontrolled Woodvilles' avarice and self promotion, and the way things were going with the marriages of EW's sisters, he may have even been concerned about Anne and Isabel being pushed into marrying one of the Woodville brothers. For all his faults, Warwick had made an enormous contribution and deserved more respect, but I would put this mistake down to his youth and immaturity when he became King. I don't dislike Edward either; he had many good qualities and despite being charismatic, unlike Warwick, I don't think he fits into the narcissist category.
Nico
Marie wrote:I first came to that conclusion about Warwick decades ago, when I'd never even heard the term narcissist. It was his flamboyant, amoral crowd-wooing activities, such as his taking the lead at 1st St. Albans and inventing the "kill the lords and spare the commons!" cry as a pseudo-man-of-the-people excuse to maximise the chances of Somerset and Northumberland ending up dead; then his frank acts of piracy, which won him the adulation of the xenophobic masses, and flinging his London kitchens open at breakfast time for anyone to come in and take huge hunks of meat off the roasting carcasses. This was not behaviour matched by an unusual care for the poor so far as I can see, and he could not stand rejection. People who had served under him but went over to King Henry's side got no second chance if he captured them (Edward usually operated a 2 strikes and you're out policy, and that was towards people who'd opposed him after he became king).I'm sure Warwick was utterly charming and mesmerising as so many of these people are - Louis adored him.

He seems to me a pretty typical narcissist, someone whose persona is the only real thing in his mental universe, who craves adoration and easily gets it from those who do not have the opportunity to know him personally.

I don't think Edward handled him well, though. He was young, and doubtless utterly fed up with Warwick's self-importance, but people like that are - if too powerful to destroy - best flattered into submission.

We have our own examples of the type in modern politics, but that would be off-topic.

Marie, your point about Warwick's retainers having an influence on Richard probably explains why , after he gained Middleham, he was able to win them over and keep them. People for example like Sir Thomas Gower. I know Anne is often credited with this because of the continuity, but I think it would take more than Anne's influence if he upset them.
From all accounts Clarence wasn't as good at this as Richard in the lands, such as Warwick, that he gained. But then Edward did like to meddle there.
BTW I agree entirely with what you say about the times and judging people. We all have our faults and these were people in the public eye before the days of Press scrutiny. In fact I find them more 'rounded' with all their faults, rather than the saints, sinners or cardboard people who still populate a lot of history books. H
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019, 20:26:00 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote about Warwick:

I don't dislike him though. Someone was responsible for turning the adolescent Richard into the brave and stoic person he became and that had to be Warwick. Edward just didn't have the time.

Marie observes:

I don't dislike him either because I've never had to live with him. Narcissists are incredibly selfish so their charming personae are best enjoyed at a distance.

I don't think we can credit him with turning Richard into the man he became, though - at least not in the way you suggest. Warwick was out and about on diplomatic missions, etc, etc, for so much of the time that (as I think Hicks has pointed out, and this time he's right) that Richard wouldn't have had much chance to get to know him wherever he was based. It would have been the experienced men running Warwick's household who would have taken charge of Richard and guided him. I'm sure Richard was mesmerised by Warwick on the occasions he was home, but obviously not so much so as to fall completely under his spell like Clarence.

Not that I think it was an easy choice for him. Some of the wording in TR, if it represents Richard's personal view, indicates that he blamed the Woodvilles in large part for pushing Warwick to the brink, with all the bloodshed that ensued.

Edward honestly could have handled things better. If Warwick was a narcissist, Edward was young and thoughtless. It was the Nevilles, pretty much, who prevented the Lancastrians reinvading from Scotland during the early 1460s, and Edward did not ever properly reward that. It's probably fair to say that, after satisfying his queen's demands, he left Warwick and Montagu (who had done far more for him than any Woodville) without adequate partners for their own offspring. And then he handled the whole business over the earldom of Northumberland so badly that he eventually pushed Warwick's loyal brother over the edge as well.

I don't dislike Edward either, though; not a bit. These were difficult times, and difficult, if not impossible, roles to fill adequately, and Edward was sort of hurtled into kingship without any preparation.

Hi Nicholas,
Would you consider Wolffe's biography of Henry VI? Not new but very well researched and there are copies on Amazon from £7-something.
Also, I think you mentioned getting JAH's biography of Cecily Neville. Again, the real expert on Cecily is Joanna Laynesmith, who has been researching her since her MA days. Her biography of Cis is now out in paperback - I know the hardback version was a ludicrous price thanks to the publishers, and the paperback is still £25, but perhaps you could borrow from a library.
Marie





Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H

Hilary wrote:I would add to all this, which I agree with, the fact that we mustn't forget the Warwick story began way before 1460. He was part of a triumvirate (ROY, his father and himself) which were intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne. Edward was still an Earl, a boy. After 1460 he was the only one of them left. Had ROY or his father survived he might have behaved with more restraint towards the now-grown Edward. And he was also the product of an equally ambitious mother, a baroness in her own right, and had a wife who was also one of the top landowners. He had an impeccable pedigree!
Marie writes:I don't believe that York, Salisbury and Warwick were all intent on putting a Yorkist on the throne for years before 1461. Far from it. York did not even attempt to claim the throne until 1460, and when he did Salisbury and Warwick did not approve. Had they approved, and thrown their weight behind York's bid for kingship, perhaps Henry might have been deposed at that point. In fact, even Edward seems to have been shocked. It was only Warwick's defeat at 2nd St. Albans, and his loss of King Henry's person, that made claiming the throne the only possible avenue left for Edward, and for Warwick, who could expect no mercy from Queen Margaret. I honestly think Warwick's ego would have been more comfortable parading rag doll Henry round the streets like a circus animal, with all the admiring eyes on himself, than as supporter to an amazingly tall, handsome and charismatic young man like Edward.
HilaryHe was what I'd call (and he himself would call) a 'lucky' person. As Marie says, they exist in the workplace and in politics today. They take risks which are more audacious than most would indulge in, and when they're successful they think they are 'blessed', infallible, yes lucky. That draws others to them. All is well until one of these audacious acts fails - for the first time. They are so egotistical that they go into a downward spiral making further catastrophic decisions. But because they're egotistical they totally ignore the people they take down with them. In modern life they often go sick or retire leaving someone else to pick up the debris. Warwick couldn't do that. Neither could he stop the spiral because his own self-importance blinded him to his errors of judgement; the key one being the alliance with MOA who never liked or trusted him.
Marie writes:Maybe that is a slightly different type (some of them possible cocaine-fuelled?), and maybe what they end up with is clinical depression. (Or perhaps some of them were actually sick or depressed all along, which is why they weren't coping.) I can't see really narcissistic types opting for early retirement or sick leave, because they can't live without the oxygen of constant adulation. The genuine articles, like Warwick, have personas that are so armour-plated as to be impervious to reality. If things go wrong, they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other.
I don't think Warwick had a choice about his reconciliation with Queen Margaret, though. He couldn't get into Calais. There was a Burgundian fleet as well as Edward after him, and Louis wouldn't settle for anything less because he adored both his Lancastrian relatives and Warwick, and for him it was a match made in heaven (in fact, he even asked for divine assistance with the project, and promised to make a particular pilgrimage if it came off, which he duly did). The deal was not made overnight. Warwick wasn't at all confident about it. He didn't even trust Queen Margaret to let Anne's marriage to Prince Edward go ahead, and did his best to have it happen ahead of the dispensation before he left for England. Queen Margaret, on the other hand, didn't trust Warwick to put her husband back on the throne, and wouldn't allow the marriage to take place until that had happened (and even then she went on prevaricating). The only person really happy was Louis. All the French sources tell the same story, which is really quite a surprising slant on a character (Louis) who normally comes across as pragmatic to a fault.
Hilary wrote:
There is one thing again though. At least unlike Rivers, the other 'Renaissance man' he did actually do something and do it well. That is until it all went wrong.
Marie:Indeed. I know not everyone agrees, but for my money Rivers didn't do an awful lot of any practical use, considering his position. Repulsing Fauconberg was probably his best effort. A bit of a poser, and probably not a terribly nice one to judge by the Dymmok papers.I think we're likely to find a lot of narcissism in 15th century high places because the highly stratified society meant that the members of the top nobility were treated as a completely higher form of animal life. It takes a strong individual to not let that sort of treatment go to their head.

Thanks Hilary and Marie for the book recommendations. I just found that there is a library copy of Wolffe's Henry VI. It looks like an updated version of the one that was on my university reading list back in the 80s, but definitely worth a review. It is also good news that the paperback version of Joanna Laynesmith's book about Cecily is out.
It is always a let down when an author can't relate to their subject; however well written it is there is always something missing.As for Henry VI's health, whatever happened to him doesn't sound like schizophrenia, which tends to show up by around 25. He was in his mid 30s, and the sudden onset sounds physical, like a brain infection or possibly a stroke. Someone writing a book about him should ask a doctor what might be a better fit.
Nico

On Thursday, 25 July 2019, 12:35:28 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Nicholas,
Would you consider Wolffe's biography of Henry VI? Not new but very well researched and there are copies on Amazon from £7-something.
Also, I think you mentioned getting JAH's biography of Cecily Neville. Again, the real expert on Cecily is Joanna Laynesmith, who has been researching her since her MA days. Her biography of Cis is now out in paperback - I know the hardback version was a ludicrous price thanks to the publishers, and the paperback is still £25, but perhaps you could borrow from a library.
Marie





Nico, it's worth downloading on Kindle at six quid but I wouldn't pay twenty pounds for it. There is quite a bit about MOA and the meeting at Angers with Louis and Warwick. Indeed quite a bit about Warwick but no speculation is given about his abandonment of George.
I think that's the problem. As in a lot of traditional history books a lot of names are thrown at you, but they are names, cardboard people who appear for a paragraph and then disappear. Beckington only appears four times and then in just the odd sentence. Stillington not at all, which considering he went on a diplomatic mission, served on commissions and ended up with the Privy Seal shows how deep it doesn't dig.
She also clearly doesn't like her subject; he's too prim. Now I don't think Penn liked the Winter King, but he did make a big attempt to get into his psyche. Henry's illness is dismissed as schizophrenia, a theory taken by her from someone else. Having known someone with that illness it doesn't fit the bill for me.
An Anne/Isabel chart would be really interesting. H

Hi Hilary,

Can I just confirm - what Johnson book (and what Johnson) are we talking about?

Marie

Hi Hilary,

Can I just confirm - what Johnson book (and what Johnson) are we talking about?

Marie

Sorry Marie. Lauren Johnson 'The Shadow King' Henry VI - just come out. I think we mentioned it just before you came back. H

Ah, that explains it. As we were talking about RdoY I at first assumed you were referring to P. A.l Johnson's standard biography of him, but then you said "her" and that "she" goes into great detail about Warwick's landing in France in 1470, and it reads like a novel . . .

and I changed into my confused head.

I haven't seen Lauren Johnson's book, and based on what's been said about it here by you and others, I don't want to precious spend time or money on it, so I'll respond to your posts when I can based on what I know from other sources (to which it doesn't sound as though Johnson will be able to add anything useful).

Marie

Hi again, Hilary,

Just one more question before I draft a reply about York - I looked in Files for the "Irish document" you mentioned having posted but couldn't see anything. If you could let me know what it was, it would be very helpful.

M

Edmund Curtis, Richard, Duke of York, as Viceroy of Ireland. 1447-1460; With Unpublished Materials for His Relat...

Hi again, Hilary,

Just one more question before I draft a reply about York - I looked in Files for the "Irish document" you mentioned having posted but couldn't see anything. If you could let me know what it was, it would be very helpful.

M

Marie replies:

Thanks, Hilary. Ah, I see it's Curtis' paper, not a contemporary document. Yes, this is a solid standard source for York's activities in Ireland. The Society library has a copy, and I probably first borrowed it out in the late 1970s. I already have a copy on my computer, fortunately.

I have a particular interest in Irish history because of family background.

Hilary wrote:

I must admit I got the impression that from the time ROY went to Ireland in the 1440s he was already disgruntled and acting like 'king of Ireland'. I also recall Warwick helped him then via his seafaring skills? It was in an Irish document which I uploaded whilst you were away some time ago.

Marie answers:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

Hilary:

Johnson, in her book which I'll write further about in another post, says that when he returned in 1450, there were at least two groups of rebels setting him up as an alternative king. She has his first encounter with Salisbury and Warwick at Dartford, where they were acting as envoys for Henry.

Marie:

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Hilary:

Incidentally, Johnson is not sympathetic to ROY; she sees him as an arrogant debtor (even though he did disprove the debt claims).

Marie:

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hilary:

The whole issue seems to have arisen out of the jostling for power in France after the death of Bedford. Because Henry was too young to go there, and later chose not to, there was no-one to control the likes of Suffolk, Somerset and ROY, all who seem to have believed that they had been sold down the line by each other. I think the only person she does admire is MOA, and that seems to be warranted.

Marie:

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence.

Hilary wrote:

I must admit I got the impression that from the time ROY went to Ireland in the 1440s he was already disgruntled and acting like 'king of Ireland'. I also recall Warwick helped him then via his seafaring skills? It was in an Irish document which I uploaded whilst you were away some time ago.

Marie answers:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

Hilary:

Johnson, in her book which I'll write further about in another post, says that when he returned in 1450, there were at least two groups of rebels setting him up as an alternative king. She has his first encounter with Salisbury and Warwick at Dartford, where they were acting as envoys for Henry.

Marie:

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Hilary:

Incidentally, Johnson is not sympathetic to ROY; she sees him as an arrogant debtor (even though he did disprove the debt claims).

Marie:

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hilary:

The whole issue seems to have arisen out of the jostling for power in France after the death of Bedford. Because Henry was too young to go there, and later chose not to, there was no-one to control the likes of Suffolk, Somerset and ROY, all who seem to have believed that they had been sold down the line by each other. I think the only person she does admire is MOA, and that seems to be warranted.

Marie:

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence.

Marie,

Just wanted to say that I found your defense of RoY very welcome! I knew he'd been named Henry's heir (1459?), but I hadn't realized York had passed on claiming the throne so many times. To be honest, though, if what I've read about Edward of Lancaster is anywhere near the truth, the further from any position of power that boy was kept, the better!

Doug

(I've snipped your reply so only your replies to Hilary remain; I hope you don't mind)

Marie wrote:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence. 

Marie,

Just wanted to say that I found your defense of RoY very welcome! I knew he'd been named Henry's heir (1459?), but I hadn't realized York had passed on claiming the throne so many times. To be honest, though, if what I've read about Edward of Lancaster is anywhere near the truth, the further from any position of power that boy was kept, the better!

Doug

(I've snipped your reply so only your replies to Hilary remain; I hope you don't mind)

Marie wrote:

York was disgruntled about having been sent to Ireland rather than having his French appointment renewed, but that doesn't mean he had planned to take the throne. He didn't act like king of Ireland in 1449-50, but was treated pretty much like it when he first arrived, because both the Anglo-Irish and Gaelic populations were pleased to finally have a Lieutenant in the country who was of such high status, and who was also a big landowner in the country. He didn't act like a king, though. He used the heraldry of his earldom off Ulster. After some months, when it became clear that the English government  and in particular the Exchequer  had abandoned him, the attitude of the Gaelic Irish towards him changed completely, and they realised they could go back on the agreements made with him because he had not support from the English government. York returned in part because of the crisis in France, and in part because  as his surviving letter to his brother-in-law Salisbury shows - his repeated pleas for payment had fallen on deaf ears and he was afraid he would get the blame for the loss of the colony if he was to stay. Curtis deals with this very well, I think.

As regards Warwick: in 1449 he was barely 21. He had not yet had the captaincy of Calais, and had no seafaring string to his bow at this time.His public career really didn't take off until 1st St. Albans.

It was after York landed again in 1459, and was attainted as a traitor in his absence, that he started to allow himself to be treated as an alternative king. Warwick came to Calais (Waterford) in 1460 to confer with York and to fetch his mother, Alice Montagu, who had fled to Ireland.

Extremely important not to mix up these two period in Ireland. They were separated by over a decade and much water passed undr the bridge in the intervening years.

I have also studied York's arrival in England, although I'm rusty on it, and I'm aware that Cade is supposed to have used the name of Mortimer. But there is zero evidence that York was behind that rebellion  he had more than enough to worry about in Ireland. It's true that he was extremely aware of his royal heritage, but the bottom line is that he did not claim the throne: not in 1450, not in 1452 at Dartford (all he was demanding there was Somerset's arrest and impeachment), not after Henry's mental breakdown in 1453, not after his victory at St. Albans and regain of control of the government in 1455. I know it's a common assumption, but if anyone wants to claim that York was after the throne all along, then they really have to put up some evidence. Even playing the long game would only go on for so long and pass by so many opportunities.

Not sure what this is about. York had serious financial difficuaties owing to arrears of payment for the running of first Normandy and then Ireland, so he had to pawn items; we know this, and so I'm sure he must have borrowed money (everybody did back then anyway). I don't know what debt case Lauren Johnson in referring to, but if York managed to prove he didn't owe the money, then it seems a bit of a weak charge to throw at him that he was arrogant about it.

Hmm. I do agree QM has had a bad press in the past, but things are never wholly one-sided. I feel greatly for Margaret as a mother trying to protect her son's future, particularly in the teeth of rumours that he wasn't Henry's son at all, but I don't think she handled things very cleverly a lot of the time.

Had she been cleverer, she would have taken on board the fact that, although it was the done thing in France and perhaps the natural order of things, it was not English custom for the queen to be given charge of the government; it had to be a male of the English royal line. She and the Yorks had actually got on well with each other until then, but after that she seems to have felt York had stabbed her in the back, and took sides against him in the political power stuggles. This created a situation in which, if York could not be destroyed, his need for self-presevation could push him to the edge and bring about the very thing Margaret feared.

Even in 1461 she didn't really understand how to win hearts much beyond those of certain lords at court, although we have good evidence of her sterling efforts on her son's behalf in "his" city of Coventry. For instance, in 1461 she didn't understand the PR problem she was giving herself in relying on Scottish aid, or giving away Berwick and all the English border counties (once she had control of them) in return for it.

York was by no means perfect  he was probably stiff and over-proud of his lineage, but he seems to have taken his responsibilities very seriously, and been a very diligent and effective administrator of Normandy. He showed the same diligence and sense of duty in Ireland. The same again when he was Protector, even marching to sort out his own supporter the Earl of Devon, whose family were behaving atrociously in Devon, thus losing the Yorkist party a very powerful ally. I think his legacy in these posts was genuinely hugely importantt to him, and this goes a long way towards explaining his furious antipathy towards Somerset after he lost Normandy and skipped away from the action back to England to save his own skin.

If this sounds a tad one-sided it's because it is the case for the defence. 

Henry IV definitely did *not* rule by conquest. Parliament specifically barred his claim to do so on the advice of Chief Justice Thirning, who pointed out that this had (negative) implications for every single landowner in the country. BTW, this is why Parliament was at pains to give a statutory basis to Mr. H. Tudor's claim, since any pretence of ruling by conquest could not be allowed.

Hi Hilary,

Sorry at the delay responding. I'll try to catch up with things as soon as I can.

Hilary wrote:

Certainly by the late 1450s Alice Montagu was conspiring with William Oldhall, Vaughan and Philip Malpas - hence her attainder.

I take it this claim is from Lauren Johnson's book. It is, unfortunately, based on a careless reading of the 1459 Acto of Attainder against them, which reads:

And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford. . . .

So Alice was nowhere near Oldhall and Vaughan, and the plotting was almost certainly unreal as there is no reason to think the Yorkists were intending the King's death at all. In fact, the King's leading of the royal army at Ludford was a nasty surprise, and made it impossible for them to stand their ground.

The Thomas Vaughan in question was the son and heir of Roger Vaughan of Tretower. As we are probably all now aware, the parish of St. James' Garlickhithe was where the Herberts had their London house, so I imagine this would have been a meeting with Sir William Herbert held in his own home. We do find Herbert and his brother Thomas acting on behalf of the Lancastrian government during the first half of 1460, so it looks as though they may have temporarily changed sides after Ludford Bridge and turned King's Evidence, spilling the beans on the meeting with York and Oldhall that they had hosted the previous summer.

Hilary wrote:

Oldhall, as you know, was ROY's 'henchman' and had to take sanctuary in St Martin's from whence he was ejected and then returned at the insistence of Henry.

Marie:

Real henchmen were, as you know, pages. Oldhall was York's Chamberlain, so the person who controlled access to him, and probably his closest friend, as we see with Edward and Lord Hastings, or Richard and Francis Lovell.

The government of Henry VI, being rather elitist, had a habit of controlling hostile lords by going after their servants and advisors. Hence in early 1453, when York was in disgrace after Dartford, rather than taking legal action against him, Parliament went after Oldhall, accusing him of having been behind Cade's Rebellion and also York's action at Dartford. Oldhall was no criminal  he was paying the price for being York's most trusted councillor. He was in fact the head of a substantial gentry family in Norfolk,; his wife was a daughter of Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and after her death the Paston's considered him as a match for their Elizabeth. His clerical brother Edmund was appointed Bishop of Meath during York's first term in Ireland.

Hilary wrote:

Interestingly this was only a couple of years' before Stillington was given the St Martin's job. I wonder if Henry intentionally put him there?

Marie:

I'm sorry, I'm not following on this one.

Hilary wrote:

Speaking from my own experience Marie, I think it is when narcissists are at the top but meet external criticism they did not envisage. Most people take a few knocks on the road to the top (even Edward), but the occasional one sails through, achieving unusual success at a young age. I think until Warwick made the misjudgment of arresting Edward he had always sailed through. And when he realised that just wasn't going to work and he wasn't as respected and adored by the country as Edward his reaction was to basically flail around and let himself be manipulated by Louis, who was as much as anything interested in a good economic investment for French trade. And the spiral went downwards and downwards. In the modern day scenario I knew, my 'Warwick' met extensive criticism from the national media, something his adoring 'henchmen' could only attempt to rescue him from. Like Warwick he flailed, the hurt was too much, only used to praise and success. And in modern terms it was easier to do a deal (just like Warwick) which led to the end of the job.

The remark of yours to which I was responding was "In modern life they often go sick or retire; from my experience it is not true (and it could be construed as an attack on the chronically ill, which I'm sure you didn't intend).

I wasn't saying narcissists don't flail. What I described them as doing when crossed was "they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other." I think that is a pretty good description of flailing, except that is not what they would be perceiving themselves as doing. It's good that we're agreed on this, then? Narcissists flail, they don't slink off. In fact, there is one in the public eye at the moment who iben doing just that over the last month - telling some awful porkies and blaming his victims for complaining about him as if he is the real victim. Sadly, he seems to have certain sections of the press eating out of his hand because they haven't bothered to research the issue.

Hilary wrote:

Certainly the only person who really wanted it [the Warwick-Lancaster alliance] was Louis. MOA, quite rightly, didn't trust Warwick an inch and Warwick knew that. There was always the prospect that, once Warwick had helped out, MOA would 'defect' again to Oxford and Somerset her long-term allies, and ditch the whole marriage arrangement by means of an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation. I do think that very likely. And George just gets forgotten (though he was named as next heir if Anne had no children).

Marie:

The oft-claimed possibility of Edward of Lancaster pulling out of his marriage to Anne on grounds of non-consummation is a fallacy. The Catholic Chruch at this period did not require consummation to make a marriage binding. The promise was binding on its own. You could only get an annulment if consummation had proved physically impossible after at least three years of trying; for the man, this was effectively a certificate of complete and utter impotence and would render him incapable of making another marriage. This is why MoA kept putting off the marriage ceremony for so many months. She had to give in eventually because Louis countered every excuse she came up with, and wouldn't let her leave his court till the marriage had been solemnised. First she insisted on having the dispensation in her hand before going ahead  Louis got her one double quick; then she insisted that Warwick put her husband back on the throne  done; then she wanted confirmation that the coup was secure - Louis got it; then it was Advent, so the marriage couldn't possibly happen until after the end of the marital closed season on 13 January  Louis got a special dispensation from a bishop who had the power to give them out. Margaret finally caved in.

Hilary wrote:

Finally, re Rivers, I recall he pulled out of the Fauconberg chaise at the last minute to go on pilgrimage and Richard had to go (Ross)?

Marie:

No, Rivers actually did hold London against Fauconberg when the rest of the Yorkist army was returning from Tewkesbury. He disappeared at the end of the year when Edward still had need of him for other mopping up matters, but that was to join a Portuguese crusade against the Moors (he never got there because his ship ran aground in Brittany). The Rome pilgrimage was later, and on the way back he greatly unimpressed Duke Charles by making his excuses and moving swiftly on instead of joining the Burgundians in battle.

Hi Hilary,

Sorry at the delay responding. I'll try to catch up with things as soon as I can.

Hilary wrote:

Certainly by the late 1450s Alice Montagu was conspiring with William Oldhall, Vaughan and Philip Malpas - hence her attainder.

I take it this claim is from Lauren Johnson's book. It is, unfortunately, based on a careless reading of the 1459 Acto of Attainder against them, which reads:

And inasmuch as Alice the wife of the said Richard, earl of Salisbury, on the said 1 August, in the thirty-seventh year of your most noble reign [1459], at Middleham in your county of York, and William Oldhall, knight, and Thomas Vaughan, late of London, esquire, at London, in the parish of St James Garlickhithe, in the ward of Queenhithe, on 4 July in the same year, falsely and traitorously schemed and plotted the death and final destruction of you, sovereign lord; and to achieve this and bring it about, the said Alice, at Middleham aforesaid on the said 1 August, and the said William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, at London in the said parish and ward, on the said 4 July, [col. b] traitorously worked upon, abetted, instigated, prompted and provoked the said duke of York and the said earls of Warwick and Salisbury to commit the said treasons, rebellions, gatherings, ridings and raising of war against your most royal person at the said town of Blore and Ludford. . . .

So Alice was nowhere near Oldhall and Vaughan, and the plotting was almost certainly unreal as there is no reason to think the Yorkists were intending the King's death at all. In fact, the King's leading of the royal army at Ludford was a nasty surprise, and made it impossible for them to stand their ground.

The Thomas Vaughan in question was the son and heir of Roger Vaughan of Tretower. As we are probably all now aware, the parish of St. James' Garlickhithe was where the Herberts had their London house, so I imagine this would have been a meeting with Sir William Herbert held in his own home. We do find Herbert and his brother Thomas acting on behalf of the Lancastrian government during the first half of 1460, so it looks as though they may have temporarily changed sides after Ludford Bridge and turned King's Evidence, spilling the beans on the meeting with York and Oldhall that they had hosted the previous summer.

Hilary wrote:

Oldhall, as you know, was ROY's 'henchman' and had to take sanctuary in St Martin's from whence he was ejected and then returned at the insistence of Henry.

Marie:

Real henchmen were, as you know, pages. Oldhall was York's Chamberlain, so the person who controlled access to him, and probably his closest friend, as we see with Edward and Lord Hastings, or Richard and Francis Lovell.

The government of Henry VI, being rather elitist, had a habit of controlling hostile lords by going after their servants and advisors. Hence in early 1453, when York was in disgrace after Dartford, rather than taking legal action against him, Parliament went after Oldhall, accusing him of having been behind Cade's Rebellion and also York's action at Dartford. Oldhall was no criminal  he was paying the price for being York's most trusted councillor. He was in fact the head of a substantial gentry family in Norfolk,; his wife was a daughter of Lord Willoughby de Eresby, and after her death the Paston's considered him as a match for their Elizabeth. His clerical brother Edmund was appointed Bishop of Meath during York's first term in Ireland.

Hilary wrote:

Interestingly this was only a couple of years' before Stillington was given the St Martin's job. I wonder if Henry intentionally put him there?

Marie:

I'm sorry, I'm not following on this one.

Hilary wrote:

Speaking from my own experience Marie, I think it is when narcissists are at the top but meet external criticism they did not envisage. Most people take a few knocks on the road to the top (even Edward), but the occasional one sails through, achieving unusual success at a young age. I think until Warwick made the misjudgment of arresting Edward he had always sailed through. And when he realised that just wasn't going to work and he wasn't as respected and adored by the country as Edward his reaction was to basically flail around and let himself be manipulated by Louis, who was as much as anything interested in a good economic investment for French trade. And the spiral went downwards and downwards. In the modern day scenario I knew, my 'Warwick' met extensive criticism from the national media, something his adoring 'henchmen' could only attempt to rescue him from. Like Warwick he flailed, the hurt was too much, only used to praise and success. And in modern terms it was easier to do a deal (just like Warwick) which led to the end of the job.

The remark of yours to which I was responding was "In modern life they often go sick or retire; from my experience it is not true (and it could be construed as an attack on the chronically ill, which I'm sure you didn't intend).

I wasn't saying narcissists don't flail. What I described them as doing when crossed was "they will throw the blame in all directions but their own and just keep going, upping the anti and playing the people around them off against each other." I think that is a pretty good description of flailing, except that is not what they would be perceiving themselves as doing. It's good that we're agreed on this, then? Narcissists flail, they don't slink off. In fact, there is one in the public eye at the moment who iben doing just that over the last month - telling some awful porkies and blaming his victims for complaining about him as if he is the real victim. Sadly, he seems to have certain sections of the press eating out of his hand because they haven't bothered to research the issue.

Hilary wrote:

Certainly the only person who really wanted it [the Warwick-Lancaster alliance] was Louis. MOA, quite rightly, didn't trust Warwick an inch and Warwick knew that. There was always the prospect that, once Warwick had helped out, MOA would 'defect' again to Oxford and Somerset her long-term allies, and ditch the whole marriage arrangement by means of an annulment on the grounds of non-consummation. I do think that very likely. And George just gets forgotten (though he was named as next heir if Anne had no children).

Marie:

The oft-claimed possibility of Edward of Lancaster pulling out of his marriage to Anne on grounds of non-consummation is a fallacy. The Catholic Chruch at this period did not require consummation to make a marriage binding. The promise was binding on its own. You could only get an annulment if consummation had proved physically impossible after at least three years of trying; for the man, this was effectively a certificate of complete and utter impotence and would render him incapable of making another marriage. This is why MoA kept putting off the marriage ceremony for so many months. She had to give in eventually because Louis countered every excuse she came up with, and wouldn't let her leave his court till the marriage had been solemnised. First she insisted on having the dispensation in her hand before going ahead  Louis got her one double quick; then she insisted that Warwick put her husband back on the throne  done; then she wanted confirmation that the coup was secure - Louis got it; then it was Advent, so the marriage couldn't possibly happen until after the end of the marital closed season on 13 January  Louis got a special dispensation from a bishop who had the power to give them out. Margaret finally caved in.

Hilary wrote:

Finally, re Rivers, I recall he pulled out of the Fauconberg chaise at the last minute to go on pilgrimage and Richard had to go (Ross)?

Marie:

No, Rivers actually did hold London against Fauconberg when the rest of the Yorkist army was returning from Tewkesbury. He disappeared at the end of the year when Edward still had need of him for other mopping up matters, but that was to join a Portuguese crusade against the Moors (he never got there because his ship ran aground in Brittany). The Rome pilgrimage was later, and on the way back he greatly unimpressed Duke Charles by making his excuses and moving swiftly on instead of joining the Burgundians in battle.

Hilary wrote:

To Brian's last point, although addressed to Doug:

When I was looking into this I couldn't find anything to support the oft-repeated claim that Richard II had recognised the Mortimers as his heirs, at least not consistently (to that extent I agree with Ian Mortimer, though even her I would quibble over some of the detail). But, like Ian Mortimer's Edward III indenture, this is a red herring since kings had no constitutional power to determine decisions made after their deaths (the same of naturally applies to Edward IV's codicil, though Richard may not have initially realised this - he did not become Protector until at least a week into May, when the Council decided to support this option).

Nowhere in the bill he put forward did the Duke of York made any reference to the wishes of Richard II. He simply rehearses the who-begat-whom going back to Henry III and concludes from it that, according to English custom (i.e., although he does not say so, the same custom that underpinned the Plantagenet claim to the French throne), he is the rightful heir.

Historical and genealogical information

Hilary wrote:No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder.
Marie replies:I know - that is what I was quoting. It does not at all say that Alice was plotting with Oldhall and Vaughan, viz:1) Oldhall and Vaughan egged York on to kill the King in London, in the parish of St. James Garlickhithe, in early July 1459;2) Alice Montagu egged the Yorkists on to kill the King at Middleham, north Yorkshire, in early August.So, as I pointed out, the Act of attainder does not put Alice anywhere near Oldhall and Vaughan. They were not even accused of plotting with each other: - Oldhall and Vaughan had been with York before he set out from London, and allegedly egging him on; - Alice had been with her husband Salisbury a month later before he set out from Middleham, and allegedly egging him on.
Hilary wrote:Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Marie replies:Sir Thomas Vaughan, ex. 1483, never had much to do with the Herberts or Vaughans of Tretower as far as I recall - the Herberts and their Vaughan kin maintained quite a number of bastards around them, as I'm sure you know. I'd be very interested in seeing the Monmouth document, Nico, if you can provide it or let me have the reference; If he was of the Tretower family, then it would make a difference to whether he is likely to have been the Thomas Vaughan at St. James Garlickhithe.
I'm afraid to have to say that, on the strength of the above (which I'm afraid is not very clear) I have to be honest that I find the connection with Stillington rather forced. I do know about Oldhall's daughter, but the problem is that, not only was Sir William Oldhall himself long dead when his descendants married Stillington's grand-daughters, but those grand-daughters were themselves married off by their guardian and not by Stillington, as I recall. The Gorges-Oldhall match having occurred, the rest is, I would suggest, a mere accident of geography.
Could you explain what you mean by "Philip Malpas was actually married to one." One what? How does this connect to Sir Thomas Vaughan? Where do the Beaumonts fit in, given that we haven't been able to establish the antecedents of Brampton's second wife? I'm sorry if I'm seeming dim.
Hilary wrote:
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.
Marie:Again, it feels to me as though you have it in for St. Martin's. I can't see the difference between Oldhall being dragged from St. Martin's by the authorities and York having the Duke of Exeter dragged from Westminster Sanctuary. How was sanctuary-breaking by Somerset's agents a case of St. Martin's "getting out of hand"? There was a general problem of sanctuary-breaking at this time, which the King's council decided to get on top of.

Hilary wrote: I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
Marie answers: How would a noted pluralist like Stillington be a safer pair of hands than his predecessor Robert Cawdray? And why wait so long (several years) after the incident before appointing Stillington? Was Cawdray dismissed in order to make way for Stillington, or did he die?
Hilary wrote:
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Marie:Her being a great heiress wouldn't have anything to do with it? Someone greedy for her estates?
Hilary wrote:Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Marie: You'll have to give me the details in Ross because this sounds like different incidents muddled up. I'm not aware that Edward expected Rivers to go into Kent with himself and Richard after their return to London in May 1471 because Rivers was being left to hold the Tower and protect the Queen, just as he had been right through this period. Nobody knew he wanted to go on a crusade until the autumn (and it wasn't to Rome, in any case) - he obtained a safe conduct on 8 October and there is no talk about it appears in the Paston Letters until December. During the summer Rivers had certainly been making himself available to help the King because he sent three men to King's Lynn on 8 July asking the Mayor and council to make warships available to him for a month to resist the King's enemies.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, sorry I knew you were quoting the Attainder.
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information

Hilary wrote:No the Alice Montagu bit was actually from the Act of Attainder.
Marie replies:I know - that is what I was quoting. It does not at all say that Alice was plotting with Oldhall and Vaughan, viz:1) Oldhall and Vaughan egged York on to kill the King in London, in the parish of St. James Garlickhithe, in early July 1459;2) Alice Montagu egged the Yorkists on to kill the King at Middleham, north Yorkshire, in early August.So, as I pointed out, the Act of attainder does not put Alice anywhere near Oldhall and Vaughan. They were not even accused of plotting with each other: - Oldhall and Vaughan had been with York before he set out from London, and allegedly egging him on; - Alice had been with her husband Salisbury a month later before he set out from Middleham, and allegedly egging him on.
Hilary wrote:Whilst you were away some time ago you missed a long discussion on the identity of the Thomas Vaughan who was executed in 1483 and his connections with London and the Beaumonts there. Philip Malpas was actually married to one. Our conclusion was that he was probably an illegitimate son of Roger of Tretower (who had many)although there is a document claiming his parents were Robert and Margaret from Monmouth which is I recall very hard to decipher and gave reason for some doubt. I think Nico has quite a bit of the detail. Oldhall's daughter and heir married Sir Walter Gorges in Somerset (Montagu lands) - the ancestor of the Gorges who married Stillington's granddaughters. We believed the Thomas named in the Act of Attainder was the 1483 one, since he had property in London and Malpas was Mayor there.
Marie replies:Sir Thomas Vaughan, ex. 1483, never had much to do with the Herberts or Vaughans of Tretower as far as I recall - the Herberts and their Vaughan kin maintained quite a number of bastards around them, as I'm sure you know. I'd be very interested in seeing the Monmouth document, Nico, if you can provide it or let me have the reference; If he was of the Tretower family, then it would make a difference to whether he is likely to have been the Thomas Vaughan at St. James Garlickhithe.
I'm afraid to have to say that, on the strength of the above (which I'm afraid is not very clear) I have to be honest that I find the connection with Stillington rather forced. I do know about Oldhall's daughter, but the problem is that, not only was Sir William Oldhall himself long dead when his descendants married Stillington's grand-daughters, but those grand-daughters were themselves married off by their guardian and not by Stillington, as I recall. The Gorges-Oldhall match having occurred, the rest is, I would suggest, a mere accident of geography.
Could you explain what you mean by "Philip Malpas was actually married to one." One what? How does this connect to Sir Thomas Vaughan? Where do the Beaumonts fit in, given that we haven't been able to establish the antecedents of Brampton's second wife? I'm sorry if I'm seeming dim.
Hilary wrote:
Re Oldhall, yes I off course meant right hand man. My reference to Stillington was concerning the fact that the harbouring of Oldhall, his extraction and return to St Martin's had caused quite a commotion and it was one of the instances where it was felt that St Martin's was getting out of hand.
Marie:Again, it feels to me as though you have it in for St. Martin's. I can't see the difference between Oldhall being dragged from St. Martin's by the authorities and York having the Duke of Exeter dragged from Westminster Sanctuary. How was sanctuary-breaking by Somerset's agents a case of St. Martin's "getting out of hand"? There was a general problem of sanctuary-breaking at this time, which the King's council decided to get on top of.

Hilary wrote: I was asking whether Henry put Stillington there as a safer pair of hands in the event of other incidents.
Marie answers: How would a noted pluralist like Stillington be a safer pair of hands than his predecessor Robert Cawdray? And why wait so long (several years) after the incident before appointing Stillington? Was Cawdray dismissed in order to make way for Stillington, or did he die?
Hilary wrote:
I have to say I find it strange that someone honed in on Alice but I need to know more about Montagu allegiances in general which is not easy as she was the last of her line. She did have previous connections with London though, through her grandmother Maud Francys.
Marie:Her being a great heiress wouldn't have anything to do with it? Someone greedy for her estates?
Hilary wrote:Re Rivers, I was referring to the bit after Tewkesbury, when Richard was sent south after Fauconburg because Rivers was preparing for his pilgrimage; even though Edward had previously directed him to go. Ross talks about Edward's anger at Rivers and his replacement by Hastings in Calais.
Marie: You'll have to give me the details in Ross because this sounds like different incidents muddled up. I'm not aware that Edward expected Rivers to go into Kent with himself and Richard after their return to London in May 1471 because Rivers was being left to hold the Tower and protect the Queen, just as he had been right through this period. Nobody knew he wanted to go on a crusade until the autumn (and it wasn't to Rome, in any case) - he obtained a safe conduct on 8 October and there is no talk about it appears in the Paston Letters until December. During the summer Rivers had certainly been making himself available to help the King because he sent three men to King's Lynn on 8 July asking the Mayor and council to make warships available to him for a month to resist the King's enemies.

Historical and genealogical information

Hilary wrote:
For 'our' Thomas see here page 26:
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Vaughan Family of Wales : B H J Hughes : Free Download, Borrow, and Stre...

Historical and genealogical information

P. S.

I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.

Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.

Marie

P. S.

I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.

Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.

Marie

P. S.

I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.

Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.

Marie

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.

Forgot to add that the genealogy site I sent you this morning was something I found quickly today which explained the controversy over Vaughan's birth and his relationship with Malpas. We spent hours going through Welsh and English Visitations and genealogies trying to locate Robert and Margaret Vaughan. In fact I recall we did wonder whether Robert was a mistake for Roger? H
On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 15:19:18 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

P. S.

I see from a genealogy website that:-

1) the idea that Sir Thomas V. was a bastard of Roger of Tretower predates the discovery of the Monmouth document (seems to have been a guess - there doesn't seem to be a documentary basis for it)t;

2) the Monmouth document is TNA E 210/2694. There is no suggestion here that the doc is difficult to read, and it seems unlikely that Sir Thomas would have been concerned about this tomb if it were not that of his parents.

Hilary, do you know if Nico has a copy of this document? If not, I will order.

Marie

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.

Monmouthshire  Wales.

Hi,
I would be interested in looking at the Monmouth document as I have never read the original. Marie, Could you post it in the files? I had thought that 'Robert' may have been a error and the entry should have read 'Roger,' and 'Margaret' could have been a reference to Roger of Tretower's second wife, Margaret Audley. Another possibility was that Robert may have been the son of Roger and Thomas was his son, the wrong generation but still of the same family.
I have done other genealogy on the Vaughan family along with other families in Wales and the Marches. They are extremely prolific and there are many branches. The name can be simply be an anglicization of Fychan and there a lot of unrelated families, but the Vaughans that you find in high places are likely to be related to the Bredwardine/Tretower group in some way..

Here is the link to footnote in the visitations:https://archive.org/details/HeraldicVisitationsOfWalesAndPartOfTheMarchesBetweenTheYears1586/page/n69
Thomas Vaughan is also shown on stirnet as #12+ under other illegitimate children (not definitively our Thomas).https://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/uv/vaughan07.php
I have been looking through some older posts. The Beaumont and Philip Malpas reference are under a large section called 'John Bonauntre of London' which goes back several months from last summer to early this year. Unfortunately, Yahoo deleted some of this section automatically, so some posts may have been lost (I don't know if it was just my account). Hilary traced the Beaumont/Bonauntres back to the city of London through Thomas Beaumont's mother Emme Spayne. It wasn't certain exactly how the precise family tree worked in relation to Thomas and Margaret Brampton, but there was a pattern of marriages and linked families that strongly suggested that they were descendants of the Bonauntres who were tapicers and chandlers in 14th century London, who left wills citing links to Essex and Kent. There were also some Bonauntres of Crewkerne in Somerset, who may have served Clarence. The Spayne family, associated with London and Kent also intermarried with the Wilfords from the same area. Beaumont was a protegee of Oliver King, who was also from the London merchant community. We have never established exactly who Ralph Wilford was, but we speculated that Thomas Beaumont may have been in a position to provide information about him. Also, Beaumont's change from academia to prestigious ecclesiastical appointments coincides with the Warbeck crisis and since his sister was married to Brampton, he was likely to have been in a position to provide valuable information about PW.
Nico






On Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 19:58:48 BST, maryfriend@... [] <@yahoogroups..com> wrote:

Just googled the Vaughan family of Tretower and they are descended from the Vaughan's of Bredwardine. Roger Vaughan, the first Vaughan at Tretower, was the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine. If you google Vaughan family of Tretower then you come up with Vaughan Family of Tretower Court, Parish of Llanfihangel, Cwm-du Brecknock in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography. Apparently the Roger of Tretower had illegitimate children and one named Thomas was a prisoner in France for a long time and E4 gave £40 for his ransom.Could he be our Thomas Vaughan? There are lots of Vaughan's called Thomas though.

Marie,

Then legally, and constitutionally, the crown was even then considered to not be the monarch's personal property and something the monarch could leave to whomever he chose? So, even though the crown was inheritable, it wasn't a personal inheritance (such as money or property), and if someone other than the closest heir claimed the throne, that claim could be accepted by the royal Council/Parliament/the Three Estates depending on the circumstances.

Doug

Marie wrote:

To Brian's last point, although addressed to Doug:

When I was looking into this I couldn't find anything to support the oft-repeated claim that Richard II had recognised the Mortimers as his heirs, at least not consistently (to that extent I agree with Ian Mortimer, though even her I would quibble over some of the detail). But, like Ian Mortimer's Edward III indenture, this is a red herring since kings had no constitutional power to determine decisions made after their deaths (the same of naturally applies to Edward IV's codicil, though Richard may not have initially realised this - he did not become Protector until at least a week into May, when the Council decided to support this option).

Nowhere in the bill he put forward did the Duke of York made any reference to the wishes of Richard II. He simply rehearses the who-begat-whom going back to Henry III and concludes from it that, according to English custom (i. e., although he does not say so, the same custom that underpinned the Plantagenet claim to the French throne), he is the rightful heir.

Mary wrote:

I vaguely remember commenting but I will look to see if I can find the original post as I cannot remember exactly what was said. I think it may have been about various places and their geography. I have however found some notes about the Herberts and their connections to the Vaughans. William Herbert ( made Earl of Pembroke and father of the William who married Katherine Plantagenet) would have been initially known as William ap William ap Thomas, his father being William ap Thomas, an adherent of R of Y. E4 rewarded the young William with the title Baron Herbert and so he assumed the English style surname instead of the Welsh patronimic. His mother was Gwladys ferch Davydd Gam and her first husband was Sir Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine not Tretower. Her two sons by that marriage were brought up with her ap Thomas / Herbert sons.

Marie replies:

According to my notes on the Vaughans, Gwladus had three sons by Sir Rhosser Vaughan of Bredwardine - Watkyn, Thomas and Roger. Watkyn was given the main family seat of Bredwardine, Thomas got Hergest (near Kington) and Roger, the youngest, was left Tretower. So even going back that far gives a lot of Vaughan families scattered about the Welsh Marches. Thomas of Hergest may be the original of the Black Vaughan of Kington legend, the inspiration for Conan Doyle's Hound of the Baskervilles.

Of course, just because the parents of Sir Thomas (d. 1483) were buried at Monmouth Priory does not mean they necessarily lived at Monmouth itself. They do need further investigation.

For the link to the Monmouth document - thanks Hilary, you're a gem. The image is fuzzy, deliberately so probably, but I copied it on to my computer and enhanced it as much as I could, and there's no doubt that the names are Robert and Margaret, and they are Sir Thomas' father and mother respectively. Robert is an esquire, if that helps.

Probably not worth spending money on the original, then?

Marie

Doug asked:

Then legally, and constitutionally, the crown was even then considered to not be the monarch's personal property and something the monarch could leave to whomever he chose? So, even though the crown was inheritable, it wasn't a personal inheritance (such as money or property), and if someone other than the closest heir claimed the throne, that claim could be accepted by the royal Council/Parliament/the Three Estates depending on the circumstances.

Marie answers:

No, the crown was not personal property, and there was always an elective element in the succession. This is why it was decided that Richard II's abdication and replacement by Bolingbroke needed to be done in parliament, and why Edward IV and Richard III both waited until they'd been asked three times by a crowd of the chief citizens before accepting the crown. But it was also a hereditary monarchy so there had to be an hereditary basis for any candidature. There isn't a single instance I can think of where the new king, no matter how poor his credentials, doesn't make a fist of claiming to be the right heir by inheritance. Henry IV was doing this, even though it looks as though he was relying on a false genealogy. Whether he failed to state in parliament the details of his right line of descent from Henry III, or did state them but this was edited out for the parliament rolls, I guess we'll never know, but the committee of doctors shows how important it was for the appearances to be legal.

Nico wrote:

I would be interested in looking at the Monmouth document as I have never read the original. Marie, Could you post it in the files? I had thought that 'Robert' may have been a error and the entry should have read 'Roger,' and 'Margaret' could have been a reference to Roger of Tretower's second wife, Margaret Audley. Another possibility was that Robert may have been the son of Roger and Thomas was his son, the wrong generation but still of the same family.

Marie replies:

I'll put in the order, but as you will know from previous times I've done this, orders from TNA take about 4 weeks start to finish. I'll post it to files as soon as I have it, and I'll also post a transcription. The likeliest thing is it will say exactly what it's been claimed to say, but at least then we'll know for sure.

If these were the parents of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) as the document apparently states, then Margaret cannot have been Sir Roger's second wife, Margaret Audley, as Margaret Audley's first husband, Lord Powys, did not die until 1466.

I'm sure there is some blood link between Sir Thomas (d. 1483) and the Vaughans of Tretower, but we cannot second guess what it was. As I have just shown in a post a couple of hours ago, Richard himself had a Vaughan servant whose father was called Robert - his father was Ivan (Ieuan, I guess, so may also be recorded as John).

Nico:

I have done other genealogy on the Vaughan family along with other families in Wales and the Marches. They are extremely prolific and there are many branches. The name can be simply be an anglicization of Fychan and there a lot of unrelated families, but the Vaughans that you find in high places are likely to be related to the Bredwardine/Tretower group in some way.

Marie:

Prolific they certainly are, and aside from those who stayed in Wales or the border area, Richard himself employed a few Vaughans, none of whom I've been able to place on a tree as yet.

The surname is indeed an anglicization of Fychan (or Vychan, as more likely written in medieval Welsh) meaning small, and o judge by the Visitation you have linked, even the main branch continued to spell their name Vychan in Welsh-language documents.

Thanks for the Visitation, withi its footnotes; as you probably know, in general I don't like using visitations for 15th-century genealogy, unless they are very early examples, because mostly they're too late to be reliable and they don't even give you dates for each generation, but they're something to start with.

The list in Warkworth is interesting, but it's fairly inaccurate as regards who was killed and who survived, so I don't know how much reliance to place on the names per se. The footnote that shows Ann, "sol. eyre [sole heir?] Syr Tomas Vychan off Pwmfrett" marrying Sir John Wgan or Organ is interesting, though, as Sir Thomas Vaughan of Pontefract can only be the one executed there in 1483, and I was not aware of this daughter.

Nico wrote:

I have been looking through some older posts. The Beaumont and Philip Malpas reference are under a large section called 'John Bonauntre of London' which goes back several months from last summer to early this year. Unfortunately, Yahoo deleted some of this section automatically, so some posts may have been lost (I don't know if it was just my account). Hilary traced the Beaumont/Bonauntres back to the city of London through Thomas Beaumont's mother Emme Spayne. It wasn't certain exactly how the precise family tree worked in relation to Thomas and Margaret Brampton, but there was a pattern of marriages and linked families that strongly suggested that they were descendants of the Bonauntres who were tapicers and chandlers in 14th century London, who left wills citing links to Essex and Kent. There were also some Bonauntres of Crewkerne in Somerset, who may have served Clarence. The Spayne family, associated with London and Kent also intermarried with the Wilfords from the same area. Beaumont was a protegee of Oliver King, who was also from the London merchant community. We have never established exactly who Ralph Wilford was, but we speculated that Thomas Beaumont may have been in a position to provide information about him. Also, Beaumont's change from academia to prestigious ecclesiastical appointments coincides with the Warbeck crisis and since his sister was married to Brampton, he was likely to have been in a position to provide valuable information about PW.

Marie replies:

This is after I had dipped out of the discussions on the Beamonts because I couldn't agree with the direction they were taking. In fact, it was me, on the earlier thread, who identified Emme Spayne as a Londoner, and thus Margaret's Beaumont family as probably also being from London. There was nothing to show that the London Beamonts and Bonauntres (whose names would have been pronounced quite differently - Bay(a)-mont and Bon-ahn-tray respectively) were the same family, and I must be honest that I believe the chances of that being so to be absolutely negligible. I don't want to fall out with anybody over this, but that was, and remains, my position.

I've also got a very large file on Clarence, listing a number of his servants, and no Bonauntres amongst them. Spayne would have been Emma's last husband, and therefore only Margaret's stepfather, but a Wilford link, if close enough, would be interesting in connection with PW. I think there's something on the Wilfords in JAH's book on Edward of Warwick and the Simnel business, isn't there?

For the link to the Monmouth document - thanks Hilary, you're a gem. The image is fuzzy, deliberately so probably, but I copied it on to my computer and enhanced it as much as I could, and there's no doubt that the names are Robert and Margaret, and they are Sir Thomas' father and mother respectively. Robert is an esquire, if that helps.

Probably not worth spending money on the original, then?

Marie

Hilary wrote:
Just come up with a tiny smidgen this morning Mary et al in, of all places, the brochure to Jesus College, Oxford.
It's a deed from 1350 by Robert Vaughan, son of Roger Vaughan, gifting land to his brother Peter, a priest. The land is in Durstone which turns out to be two miles from Bredwardine and it's the first mention of a Robert.
Now as you know, there were two Roger Vaughans before 1415 (when the younger died). Some biographies have them both as sons of Walter Sais and Florence Bredwardine, others have them father and son. I tend to think the latter, because the elder Roger is only shown in the Visitations as having Roger the younger and a daughter. If he'd had sons Robert and Peter they not brother Roger the younger would have inherited.
So could the Robert, of Robert and Margaret on Monmouth have been the son of this Robert? That would make 'our' Thomas a cousin to Thomas of Tretower, which could make sense?

Marie cogitates:
The problem is that, in an age of large families, virtually every branch would end up re-using most if not all of the traditional family names. So, as Mary says, there are a lot of Thomases. There are loads of Walters/Watkyns. According to Hicks (Clarence, p. 151) in February 1478 Richard secured a grant for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.
NB. I've just noticed in my notes that a Thomas ap Roger Vaughan, bastard, of Tretower was indicted with Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower in 1486. So if Sir Thomas of Tretower's bastard brother and namesake was still living in 1486, he cannot have been the Sir Thomas Vaughan executed in 1483.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, the rarity in this is the name 'Robert'. Now, as you say there are lots of Thomas's, Rogers, Williams. I've spent hours now and before looking for Robert Vaughan, Vaghan, Vichan, Fychan, Vachan and have only come up with the one in our document. And the Rogers are at Bredwardine/Tretower. Perhaps brother Peter might give us a clue if I can find him in the Lateran?

Marie answers:

Hi Hilary. You've evidently missed one of my other posts from yesterday in which I drew attention to a claim by Michael Hicks (Clarence, p. 51) that Richard secured a grant in 1478 for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.

Could this Richard ap Robert have been a brother of the Prince's chamberlain, maybe? Or had there been at least two Robert Vaughans in the previous generation whom we've not identified?

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.

Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.

I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Obviously I meant "we know the quartered arms of" and "quarters 1 & 3". Also meant to say probably only the saltire inherited from father - the quartered arms may have been those of his mother. More haste, less speed.

Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.

Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.

I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

P. S. Hilary, there are also several Robert Vaughans in the 16th century. The name was clearly around between the 14th and 126th centuries. Why should we expect every single persons surnamed Vaughan in the 15th century to be well recorded? What you are talking about is rarity of records, which is not necessarily rarity of Roberts.

Also, the point I was making about the bastard Thomas of Tretower (as I'm sure you actually realised) is that you had put forward the possibility that Sir Thomas (d. 1483) might be the bastard brother Thomas that Sir Thomas of Tretower is said to have had, and that this theory was now disproved.

Hilary wrote:

Hi Marie, the rarity in this is the name 'Robert'. Now, as you say there are lots of Thomas's, Rogers, Williams. I've spent hours now and before looking for Robert Vaughan, Vaghan, Vichan, Fychan, Vachan and have only come up with the one in our document. And the Rogers are at Bredwardine/Tretower. Perhaps brother Peter might give us a clue if I can find him in the Lateran?

Marie answers:

Hi Hilary. You've evidently missed one of my other posts from yesterday in which I drew attention to a claim by Michael Hicks (Clarence, p. 51) that Richard secured a grant in 1478 for a servant of his named Richard ap Robert ap Ivan Vaughan.

Could this Richard ap Robert have been a brother of the Prince's chamberlain, maybe? Or had there been at least two Robert Vaughans in the previous generation whom we've not identified?

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.

Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.

I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

Hi,
Thanks Hilary for posting the Vaughan document. That was the one that was difficult to read because of the fading. I'll see what I can make out from the enlarged photo on my ipad, but since Marie says Robert and Margaret, perhaps it was a reference to father Robert, the father of Richard ap Robert ap Ivan (Ieuan/Yevan), and 'our' Thomas was Richard ap Robert's brother. I will see what I if there is anything on this family and have another look around the Vaughan's in general.
I have also made some astrological notes on Anne and Isabel, along with Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, Richard and Clarence, which I will post when I get a chance to write them up.
Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords. I wish I could have come up with more than a circumstantial connection. Initially I was convinced that there was some connection to the Beaumont's of Gittisham or the Lords Beaumont especially since Alcester (which was associated with earlier Beaumonts) was one of his parishes, but I couldn't find anything to connect them. I reached a dead end with this search, but I will still dig around if any new ideas or leads emerge.
Nico
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 11:10:16 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Exactly. Is Robert an armiger as claimed in the write-up (I just couldn't blow it up enough)? If he is, then he could perhaps indeed be linked to the Roger of Tretower as in the 'Jesus' document, but from an earlier generation.

Marie:

Well, I highlighted this for a good practical reason, and that is that we know the quartered of Sir Thomas (ex. 1483) from old notes made regarding the surviving shield on the tomb (presumably empty) which he has in St John's chapel, Westminster Abbey. We can now assume that these arms were inherited from his father.

The arms in question are: a saltire in quarters 1 & 4 (tinctures not specified), quartered with gules, a bend engrailed or. The crest is described as a unicorn's head although it looks to me as though it may have been a stag.

These arms are quite different from those of the Tretower Vaughans. Happy hunting.

I did some more googling last night, and two things became apparent:-

1) There were a couple of generations of the ancestors of the Tretower/ Bredwardine/ Hergest grouping of Vaughans prior to the marriage of Rhosser Vaughan to Gwladus verch Matheu Goch, but genealogical details confine themselves to the direct father-son line so there will be distant cousins of the Tretower bunch whom cannot be identified;

2) Rhosser's eldest son, Sir Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine (brother of Roger of Tretower and uncle of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower) had about 15 children.

3) There are many other Welsh families of different origin who had taken Vaughan as their surname.

P. S. Hilary, there are also several Robert Vaughans in the 16th century. The name was clearly around between the 14th and 126th centuries. Why should we expect every single persons surnamed Vaughan in the 15th century to be well recorded? What you are talking about is rarity of records, which is not necessarily rarity of Roberts.

Also, the point I was making about the bastard Thomas of Tretower (as I'm sure you actually realised) is that you had put forward the possibility that Sir Thomas (d. 1483) might be the bastard brother Thomas that Sir Thomas of Tretower is said to have had, and that this theory was now disproved.

Hilary wrote:

I had indeed missed it! Thanks! BTW there is a Robert of Tretower son of Thomas and Joan Whitney but he's born in 1478 and too late.

Marie:

According to my notes the Thomas Vaughan who married Joan Whitney was one of the umpteen children of Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine, so a first cousin of Sir Thomas of Tretower.

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.

Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Hilary said:

Why I was asking whether Robert Vaughan was an armiger (as is said in the article translation) is that you would have expected some mention of him in a Visitation I'd have thought?

Marie:

Bear in mind that the Visitations were only concerned with the ancestors of living armigers. Sir Thomas Vaughan the Chamberlain only had a daughter, so unless Robert had other sons to carry on his armigerous line (which is of course possible, though Sir Thomas hasn't exactly left us a trail suggesting that this might be so), then there would be no family for the Visitations to pick up.

By the way, I've copied the Jesus document (Ah! that Jesus. ..) and tried to enhance it but it's really no better, so if you're interested then I would say you'd need to get hold of a proper copy, although I don't know that it will tell you more than the summary in the newsletter.

Further update of the "Jesus document". I thought I'd take another look at a bit more leisure. I can confirm that it's not got good enough resolution for a proper transcription - all that happens when you blow it up is that you get a screen full of pixels, and there's no way of enhancing that because it builds in distortions.

However, it is legible in a general way after a bit of staring, and I have been able to check the names. There is no Robert.

Peter is son of Roger.

The grantor is Roger ap Roger Vaghan of Dorston. He is named several times so there is no doubt. (Perhaps the easiest place to see it is at the end of line 4, Rog'o fil' Rog'i - the er is represented by an omission mark each time. This would translate into English as "to Roger son of Roger" - vaghan [or possibly vachan] is the first word on line 5.)

Roberto/ Roberti, incidentally, would be abbreviated as Robto/Robti with a horizontal bar over the top, and would look quite different.

Anyhow, on this occasion Roger has been misread as Robert!

Dorstone was one of the properties of the Vaughans who later owned Bredwardine, so Roger son of Roger fits in with the genealogies.

Hilary wrote:

I had indeed missed it! Thanks! BTW there is a Robert of Tretower son of Thomas and Joan Whitney but he's born in 1478 and too late.

Marie:

According to my notes the Thomas Vaughan who married Joan Whitney was one of the umpteen children of Watkyn Vaughan of Bredwardine, so a first cousin of Sir Thomas of Tretower.

Further update of the "Jesus document". I thought I'd take another look at a bit more leisure. I can confirm that it's not got good enough resolution for a proper transcription - all that happens when you blow it up is that you get a screen full of pixels, and there's no way of enhancing that because it builds in distortions.

However, it is legible in a general way after a bit of staring, and I have been able to check the names. There is no Robert.

Peter is son of Roger.

The grantor is Roger ap Roger Vaghan of Dorston. He is named several times so there is no doubt. (Perhaps the easiest place to see it is at the end of line 4, Rog'o fil' Rog'i - the er is represented by an omission mark each time. This would translate into English as "to Roger son of Roger" - vaghan [or possibly vachan] is the first word on line 5.)

Roberto/ Roberti, incidentally, would be abbreviated as Robto/Robti with a horizontal bar over the top, and would look quite different.

Anyhow, on this occasion Roger has been misread as Robert!

Dorstone was one of the properties of the Vaughans who later owned Bredwardine, so Roger son of Roger fits in with the genealogies.

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.

Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Yes we've still never found that deed that groups Emme Spaigne and Thomas Beaumont together, as in his Will. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 17:31:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.

Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Marie wrote: Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?
Yes, that is correct. I had a look at the info on the manors in Alcester and it there are lots of Beauchamps and no Beaumonts. I can't remember where the original reference was from. The Beaumont lands were a few miles away, so it was probably just an available parish for Thomas Beaumont with no particular connection to him. I would be interested in whatever you have discovered about the Beaumonts. There must be a lot more than are listed on the visitations, which are concerned with the most socially significant family members. I remember spotting a Henry in the Gittisham branch who would be the right age group, but I couldn't find anything more on him.
As for the Vaughan document, if it is Roger ap Roger, then that would fit Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower, and possibly lend some credibility to the Prior Coch story. Hopefully a clearer version of the document will give some more information. Another problem is that we don't know the precise age of Thomas Vaughan or Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower. If RV was born around the turn of the century and TV in the 1420s, then it would be a good fit.

Nico
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 10:16:12 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Yes we've still never found that deed that groups Emme Spaigne and Thomas Beaumont together, as in his Will. H
On Friday, 9 August 2019, 17:31:15 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Nico wrote:

Marie, it is unfortunate that we can't find the actual father of Thomas and Margaret. Hopefully, I can find the record that Hilary found giving several possible marriages for Emme Spayne. She was definitely Thomas mother as she was named in his will. Spayne was her last husband, but it was that name that was part of the Kent gentry in the same area as the Wilfords.

Marie:

Hi Nico, thanks for this but I was there for the theorizing over Emma Spayne's previous marriages. You sent me Thomas's will, if you remember, and I homed in on Emme Spayne as the mother from that, and found her suing people in the London area, which narrowed down the likely field a bit. But we were never able to find out her birth identity and therefore her previous marriages. There are other Emmas in London earlier, of course, but one can't just adopt them as Emma Spayne in an intermediate marriage without the evidence..

One day perhaps the evidence will come out of the woodwork, but it can't be forced. Some things remain a mystery for decades and then suddenly someone turns something up and it moves forward again.

Alcester was the home of Lord Beauchamp. Were there Beaumonts there earlier, or have these two surnames got confused?

Which document refers to TV as alias Llandaff? The only mention I could see in the catalogue to TV and Llandaff in the same document is in the Monmouth doc, which involved the Bishop of Llandaff (Monmouth being in the diocese of Llandaff at that time).

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

Just an update on Richard's servant Richard ap Robert ap Ieuan Vaughan. I discovered I had a photograph of the document on my computer, from a session at TNA years back. It is actually a grant of English denizenship (warrant dated 20 February 1478). Then, by googling some of the phrases in the grant, I discovered that he got a regrant of this in February 1484, which was much more detailed about his rights, from which I presume that the first one had not stopped him having problems.

From the detail in the second grant, it seems he had children, and he was perhaps working for Richard in Wales as the grant specifies the rights he was to enjoy in a Welsh as well as an English context, and his exemption from feudal dues charged by Welsh lords.

Perhaps he was a brother of Sir Thomas, but he isn't named as an esquire or gentleman (or anything in particular) so it may not be the case.

On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 5:03 pm, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

Hi Hilary,

In response to your post to Doug, I don't think you're really in disagreement with each other, just looking at the facts from different angles. Yes, ultimately it was about who wielded the power - isn't it always, though, in any system? Observing constitutions, written or otherwise, is about a collective agreement that, although in the short term it is an unwanted brake on a leader's power, in the long run it helps avoid revolution and so keeps leaders safer in their beds. The fact that judges are appointees is a problem that has never been adequately resolved anywhere, not even under the American constitution. As soon as you have a leader unwilling to observe the conventions or the higher ideals of the constitution you have the possibility of abuse.

Obviously this was more the case with the 15thC political set-up than it is in modern democracies, but monarchs were foolish if they tried to ride roughshod over parliament, whose cooperation they needed for the granting of much-needed taxation - I think Doug is right on that one. Parliament wasn't quite as tame as has sometimes been made out - this is why kings who were experiencing dissent often tried to rule without parliament for as long as they could, and also why you see kings assenting to so many Bills initiated by the Commons that they probably weren't enthusiastic about. There are a couple of protectionist Acts passed by Richard's parliament, for instance, which appear to be the brainchildren of the London merchant community and about which Richard was probably unenthusiastic (he managed to get one of them revoked later, with the agreement of that same merchant community, because it was having unforeseen negative consequences), but these were people whom he could not afford to annoy.

Generally, we don't know what went on in Parliament, or how bolshy the members could be, but in the case of the first session of the 1485 parliament we have a journal kept by two MPs which shows that Henry faced a lot of opposition and disgruntlement in the Commons. Similarly, the Law Book entry on the issue of repealing TR shows that there was serious argument about that in the Lords. One thing we know from the Colchester journal is that Henry announced to parliament that he was abolishing the Court of Requests (something Richard had been working hard on formalising, and which Henry probably felt the same way about as Trump felt about Obamacare); the shock and disapproval of the MPs is evident in the journal, and we can assume there must have been very serious opposition to this proposal because the Court of Requests was not abolished, and in fact the formalisation process begun by Richard continued under the Tudors.

Election of MPs was far, far from perfect in the 15thC; it is certainly true that lords such as Rivers went about looking for constituencies in which to stick their own candidates; and some parliaments, like that of 1459, were deliberately rigged from the centre, but it did not yet suffer all the abuses of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. There were not yet the plethora of rotten boroughs, which were the result of demographic changes over the centuries since the constituencies had been set up.

This practical point, of enhancing long-term stability for the benefit of rulers as well as ruled, is why all the beneficiaries of all the depositions of the period 1399-1485 were keen to disguise the extent to which their ascent to the throne was the result of their superior power, and to observe the legal niceties with as much care as they could.

Hilary wrote:

"What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough evidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, when the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties."

Marie:

I'm afraid this is not what I was saying, and it was not the legal position. After the death of Henry V Parliament debated the terms of his will (specifically the codicils) regarding the government of England and France during the minority of his baby son. Henry had wanted Gloucester to have the tutela of the young king(wardship during his minority of him and his estate, meaning the country in this case - his actual ing was left to others) and to have specific charge of the defence of England; Bedford was to run France.

But parliament - albeit probably led by the caretaker council - objected to the tutela bit as it came from Roman law (and therefore did not fit with the unwritten English constitution), and wanted Gloucester to have only the defence of the realm, and that only until the King had been crowned. In order to make this happen, the parliament of 1422 ruled that a king had no right to confer the governance or rule of the land on anyone 'lenger than he lyved'. It was parliament who came up with the title of 'Protector' to encompass the powers for the defence of the realm that they wanted Gloucester to be confined to, and parliament who ruled that this must end after the king had been crowned.

This is all extremely well set out in Annette Carson's booklet on the offices of Protector and Constable.

So the wishes of the King died with him, legally, even if there was a will. Duke Humphrey was forced by Parliament to resign as Protector after little Henry's coronation on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to have someone running his affairs like that. This is why the Woodvilles were so keen to get Edward V crowned quickly, as they were relying on this precedent to end any idea Richard might have had of being appointed Protector. As the twelve-year-old Edward V stated in his letter to King's Lynn (written for him, perhaps?), he planned to rule in his own right from the outset since God had chosen to make him king, and was thus planning to go straight to London to be crowned. The invalidity of the will of a dead monarch with regard to the running of the country, and the short duration of a 1420s-style protectorate are reasons why traditionalist historians are not overly impressed with Richard's claim to run the country as Protector.

But I would say that another, later, precedent has been overlooked by historians, as it was overlooked by the Woodvilles in 1483, i.e. the precedent of the 1450s whereby parliament recognised the need for a Protector when a crowned king was incapable of running the country in person. Things had moved on.

So Richard did not exercise the office of Protector, or call himself that, until the caretaker Council had recognised him as such, which happened about 8-10 May if I recall. They were also agreed that he should continue to exercise the office after the coronation, until Edward V had reached an age of discretion. All this needed to be ratified by parliament, and it is clear from the speech Russell wrote in preparation for the parliament to be held immediately after Edward V's coronation that getting agreement for this was to be its main purpose.

Marie

Marie replies:

I'm afraid I have no more information on the Beaumonts. I contributed whatever I could during the original discussion, and I have other projects I need to be working on so I'm afraid I can't spend any more time on these subjects at present. The main thing is to be careful not to force the evidence, to draw all the details from each document accurately, keep a careful record of these, and accept a blank for what it is. If you do that, and keep looking, you'll eventually know as much as anybody even if you don't have the full answer.

In your situation I'd stick with the London area for the moment as our brief look at the lords Beaumont and the West Country Beaumonts last year produced nothing. Not everything is online, and the best stuff online is mainly in the form of pdfs of out-of-copyright books of document transcripts. There is also much London material in the LMA that has never been published, included the copious journals kept by the city's Mayor and Council, bishops' registers and a couple of years worth of annulment cause papers from the period; and some livery company have archives that go back that far, so it's quite possible the information exists somewhere.

I know about Lord Beaumont at Alcester purely from my interest in Thomas Burdet. I don't recall reading of any Beaumont estate in the immediate area whilst I was researching Burdet, but any prominent Warwickshire Beaumonts will be somewhere in Christine Carpenter's weighty tome. The manor of Alcester was owned by Lord Beauchamp (the manor house, just outside the town, was later known as Beauchamp Court), then there was Arrow (Burdet) just to the west, Ragley (Rous) just beyond Arrow, Coughton (Throckmorton) a couple of miles to the north, but beyond that I couldn't say offhand.

What I was saying about detail again - the Jesus document is dated 1350 (I checked and this is correct) so it definitely isn't the Roger who married Matheu Goch's daughter, still less his son, Sir Roger of Tretower, though it will be the same family.

Incidentally, have you looked through all the free volumes of Archaeologia Cambrensis that are available online? That's where I found Richard ap Roger ap Ieuan Vaughan's second (1484) grant of English citizenship.

Hi Hilary,

In response to your post to Doug, I don't think you're really in disagreement with each other, just looking at the facts from different angles. Yes, ultimately it was about who wielded the power - isn't it always, though, in any system? Observing constitutions, written or otherwise, is about a collective agreement that, although in the short term it is an unwanted brake on a leader's power, in the long run it helps avoid revolution and so keeps leaders safer in their beds. The fact that judges are appointees is a problem that has never been adequately resolved anywhere, not even under the American constitution. As soon as you have a leader unwilling to observe the conventions or the higher ideals of the constitution you have the possibility of abuse.

Obviously this was more the case with the 15thC political set-up than it is in modern democracies, but monarchs were foolish if they tried to ride roughshod over parliament, whose coop eration they needed for the granting of much-needed taxation - I think Doug is right on that one. Parliament wasn't quite as tame as has sometimes been made out - this is why kings who were experiencing dissent often tried to rule without parliament for as long as they could, and also why you see kings assenting to so many Bills initiated by the Commons that they probably weren't enthusiastic about. There are a couple of protectionist Acts passed by Richard's parliament, for instance, which appear to be the brainchildren of the London merchant community and about which Richard was probably unenthusiastic (he managed to get one of them revoked later, with the agreement of that same merchant community, because it was having unforeseen negative consequences), but these were people whom he could not afford to annoy.

Generally, we don't know what went on in Parliament, or how bolshy the members could be, but in the case of the first session of the 14 85 parliament we have a journal kept by two MPs which shows that Henry faced a lot of opposition and disgruntlement in the Commons. Similarly, the Law Book entry on the issue of repealing TR shows that there was serious argument about that in the Lords. One thing we know from the Colchester journal is that Henry announced to parliament that he was abolishing the Court of Requests (something Richard had been working hard on formalising, and which Henry probably felt the same way about as Trump felt about Obamacare); the shock and disapproval of the MPs is evident in the journal, and we can assume there must have been very serious opposition to this proposal because the Court of Requests was not abolished, and in fact the formalisation process begun by Richard continued under the Tudors.

Election of MPs was far, far from perfect in the 15thC; it is certainly true that lords such as Rivers went about looking for constituencies in which to stick their own candidates; and some parliaments, like that of 1459, were&n bsp;deliberately rigged from the centre, but it did not yet suffer all the abuses of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. There were not yet the plethora of rotten boroughs, which were the result of demographic changes over the centuries since the constituencies had been set up.

This practical point, of enhancing long-term stability for the benefit of rulers as well as ruled, is why all the beneficiaries of all the depositions of the period 1399-1485 were keen to disguise the extent to which their ascent to the throne was the result of their superior power, and to observe the legal niceties with as much care as they could.

Hilary wrote:

"What complicated things was that, as Marie said earlier, the wishes of a monarch died with him unless there was a will to honour them. And this is where we aren't at all sure about Edward V because the Council clearly were eventually, with enough e vidence, prepared to set him aside. And of course, wh en the king is a child, there is no monarch to direct parliament or the judges, it's down to a set of self-interested parties."

Marie:

I'm afraid this is not what I was saying, and it was not the legal position. After the death of Henry V Parliament debated the terms of his will (specifically the codicils) regarding the government of England and France during the minority of his baby son. Henry had wanted Gloucester to have the tutela of the young king(wardship during his minority of him and his estate, meaning the country in this case - his actual ing was left to others) and to have specific charge of the defence of England; Bedford was to run France.

But parliament - albeit probably led by the caretaker council - objected to the tutela bit as it came from Roman law (and therefore did not fit with the unwritten English constitution), and wanted Gloucester to have only the defence of the realm, and that only until the King had been crowned. In order to make this happen, the parliament of 1422 ruled that a king had no right to confer the governance or rule of the land on anyone 'lenger than he lyved'. It was parliament who came up with the title of 'Protector' to encompass the powers for the defence of the realm that they wanted Gloucester to be confined to, and parliament who ruled that this must end after the king had been crowned.

This is all extremely well set out in Annette Carson's booklet on the offices of Protector and Constable.

So the wishes of the King died with him, legally, even if there was a will. Duke Humphrey was forced by Parliament to resign as Protector after little Henry's coronation on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the dignity of a crowned king to have someone running his affairs like that. This is why the Woodvilles were so keen to get Edward V crowned quickly, as they wer e relying on this precedent to end any idea Richard m ight have had of being appointed Protector. As the twelve-year-old Edward V stated in his letter to King's Lynn (written for him, perhaps?), he planned to rule in his own right from the outset since God had chosen to make him king, and was thus planning to go straight to London to be crowned. The invalidity of the will of a dead monarch with regard to the running of the country, and the short duration of a 1420s-style protectorate are reasons why traditionalist historians are not overly impressed with Richard's claim to run the country as Protector.

But I would say that another, later, precedent has been overlooked by historians, as it was overlooked by the Woodvilles in 1483, i.e. the precedent of the 1450s whereby parliament recognised the need for a Protector when a crowned king was incapable of running the country in person. Things had moved on.

So Richard did not exercise the office of Protector, or call himself that, until the caretaker Counci l had recognised him as such, which happened about 8-10 May if I recall. They were also agreed that he should continue to exercise the office after the coronation, until Edward V had reached an age of discretion. All this needed to be ratified by parliament, and it is clear from the speech Russell wrote in preparation for the parliament to be held immediately after Edward V's coronation that getting agreement for this was to be its main purpose.

Marie

Hilary asked Doug:

Before I respond can I ask one little question which we perhaps should have clarified. By Parliament are you talking about the Commons and the Lords or both. Because there is quite a difference? I was talking about the Commons.

Marie:

Last intervention before I disappear again. The Commons had power because they could, and did, refuse to vote taxes if the King tried to ride roughshod over them. Doug is absolutely right about the effect of the cripplingly expensive 100 Years War, and the period of constant rebellion that followed it, on the power of the Commons.

Hilary asked Doug:

Before I respond can I ask one little question which we perhaps should have clarified. By Parliament are you talking about the Commons and the Lords or both. Because there is quite a difference? I was talking about the Commons.

Marie:

Last intervention before I disappear again. The Commons had power because they could, and did, refuse to vote taxes if the King tried to ride roughshod over them. Doug is absolutely right about the effect of the cripplingly expensive 100 Years War, and the period of constant rebellion that followed it, on the power of the Commons.

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

I wanted to pick up on this again because, despite my confusion between Thomas and Robert I would still put money on our Thomas coming from the family of Sir Roger Vaughan's (1471) wife, Denise
I'll quickly summarise why:
1. They originated from Wernddu in Monmouthshire2. They used the surname Vaughan, alternating with Fychan from the mid fourteenth century3. We have the IPMs of her father and brother. Land was primarily owned in England - Herefordshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. By 1437 the son had changed his surname to Thomas.4. They also were related to the Herberts through a common grandmother, Maud Barry5. They had an equally illustrious pedigree as the Vaughans of Tretower6. Finally, Margaret Herle had a co-heiress sister Maud who married into the Mortimer (of Chirk) family. She was the grandmother of Hugh Mortimer who died at Wakefield who was married to one Eleanor Cornewall. Eleanor remarried to Richard Crofts and became - presumed Governess to Edward Prince of Wales.
Now proving this is a whole different thing because of the difficulties of Welsh genealogy. Is it possible that the Monmouth Priory document could be a copy and that the name Robert should be Thomas? H
(Ps Mary do you know if the surname Barri is interchangeable with Barre?)
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 17:04:08 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

Hilary wrote:

Absolutely, the power of the Commons was to approve or reject. It had no legislative power because it didn't provide the 'government'. And if it rejected too much then it had to take a long break

Marie replies:

Only a proportion of Bills were initiated by the King and the government. The rest were either private petitions or petitions put forward by the Commons as a body. Yes, these petitions all had to get through the process of being 'tried' by the triers of petitions before they could get a hearing in parliament, but kings also had to be careful not to annoy the Commons or they would soon find themselves out of money, so Commons petitions actually form a sizeable chunk of the Acts of Parliament that were passed.

Yes, kings could try to rule without parliament for long periods, but lets not confuse Charles I's odd behaviour (which lost him his head) with that of late medieval kings. King's couldn't manage without parliament for long because other means of raising additional money, such as benevolences, were just too unpopular and looked unconstitutional. Edward IV managed without parliament for precisely 5 years, no more than that even with the benefit of Louis' pension. In the long run, mollifying parliament was a sounder option than becoming a client state of the French or going round threatening and cajoling your subjects one at a time.

It's the same old rule as ever: Follow the money. The Commons were the source of desperately needed top-up to the royal revenues.

We didn't have democracy, but we didn't have absolute monarchy in the way the French had it either. I was taught that at A level, and it still seems to me to be true although it is important not to exaggerate the powers of parliament in this era. There was an attempt at absolute rule under the Stuarts, but that is a later period and it soon led to the total abolition of the monarchy. A combination of foreign wars and internal revolutions had won parliament - including the Commons - genuine if limited power within the system. It wasn't really about Magna Carta but about the real-world limitations of the king's power in an era where government had become so expensive, and in a country where all the lords had armies, and ordinary people were very quick to rebel.

It's interesting that, even at the start of the Stuart era, when James I was denying that parliament had ever had any role in determining the royal succession, the rediscovery of TR enabled Parliament to refute that claim. Had the members known their Adam of Usk, they would have realised that this role went back even further than Richard III.

Hilary wrote:

The trouble is regencies/Protectorates don't suit an absolute monarchy because they are in essence government by committee. This is because the Protector doesn't have the power of the monarch and is always looking over his shoulder. Even modern day democratic governments need a primus inter pares to hire and fire, make spot decisions etc. And of course the same thing happened when Henry VI became seriously impaired. Had he had a grown heir then they could have waded in and taken over, just like Henry Prince of Wales did for Henry IV. So one could actually see ROY's point of view that the country needed a strong hand, albeit perhaps temporarily. If you look at the minorities of Richard II, Henry VI and Edward VI they have the same symptoms of the jousting for power of 'committee' members. It is essentially doomed - and it blights the rest of the reign.

Marie answers:

I agree that, without someone at the helm during a minority, there will be instability, but that isn't because monarchy was absolute. As you say, even in a democracy someone is needed at the helm.

Also, just to be clear that protectorates and regencies were not the same thing, Mancini notwithstanding (he didn't understand the English system). The clue is in the name. The Protector really only had control over matters of defence and homeland security. A regent was a stand-in for the monarch in the full sense. We didn't go for regencies in England at this period. The choice in 1453 was between QM's bid for regency and having York as Protector. QM's option didn't stand a chance, not only because she was a woman and a foreigner, but also because the English at this period didn't like giving anyone full regency powers (again, as a foreigner, she failed to grasp this).

Either appointment, in the 15th century, had to be ratified by parliament, and its duration was limited by the same body. There were no "de facto" protectors any more.

Hi,
Thanks Marie for the references. By the way, what does LMA stand for? London merchant records may be helpful in giving more information on the Bonauntres or Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords. J-AH did have a section on Ralph Wilford, but wasn't able to find out exactly who he was. I would love to find something to support my suspicion that Thomas Beaumont was passing information to Oliver King about Yorkist dissent, who then passed it on to Henry. There certainly were a number of Yorkist families in Kent who were not far from the Wilfords and Spaynes. Anyway, I will keep looking.
Also, re. the Vaughan thread you mentioned that Prior Coch/Goch was named Matheu? Are there any reference to him that could date him to see if he fits in with the Tretower timeline?
Hilary, that info on Denise Vaughan's family is interesting. Barre (de la Barre) and Barry/Barri are believed to be the same family. One of them, Sir Thomas Barre married Alice Talbot and their daughter Joan married William Catesby. Some online genealogies say that his family originated in Barry, South Wales, but I can't be sure how accurate they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Barry_familyhttps://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/bb4fz/bzmisc22.php

Nico




On Tuesday, 13 August 2019, 10:48:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I wanted to pick up on this again because, despite my confusion between Thomas and Robert I would still put money on our Thomas coming from the family of Sir Roger Vaughan's (1471) wife, Denise
I'll quickly summarise why:
1. They originated from Wernddu in Monmouthshire2. They used the surname Vaughan, alternating with Fychan from the mid fourteenth century3. We have the IPMs of her father and brother. Land was primarily owned in England - Herefordshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. By 1437 the son had changed his surname to Thomas.4. They also were related to the Herberts through a common grandmother, Maud Barry5. They had an equally illustrious pedigree as the Vaughans of Tretower6. Finally, Margaret Herle had a co-heiress sister Maud who married into the Mortimer (of Chirk) family. She was the grandmother of Hugh Mortimer who died at Wakefield who was married to one Eleanor Cornewall. Eleanor remarried to Richard Crofts and became - presumed Governess to Edward Prince of Wales.
Now proving this is a whole different thing because of the difficulties of Welsh genealogy. Is it possible that the Monmouth Priory document could be a copy and that the name Robert should be Thomas? H
(Ps Mary do you know if the surname Barri is interchangeable with Barre?)
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 17:04:08 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

Nicholas wrote:Thanks Marie for the references. By the way, what does LMA stand for?
Marie:London Metropolitan Archives. The main London archive (in Clerkenwell, up the top of Exmouth Market and then round to the right).

Nicholas wrote: London merchant records may be helpful in giving more information on the Bonauntres or Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords. J-AH did have a section on Ralph Wilford, but wasn't able to find out exactly who he was. I would love to find something to support my suspicion that Thomas Beaumont was passing information to Oliver King about Yorkist dissent, who then passed it on to Henry.
Marie:Sorry, this sort of thing really worries me. Desiring conspiracies then setting out looking for the evidence really is dangerous. It's not the same as police solving a crime that they know took place. The danger - and it is huge - is that evidence will be hammered into the pre-shaped hole. Try to keep a totally open mind while you research individuals, and let the emerging facts tell you their own story. It very likely won't be the one you hoped to find; it almost never is; but that's what making history so fascinating. And Bonauntres are almost certainly not the same as Beaumonts.


Nicholas wrote:There certainly were a number of Yorkist families in Kent who were not far from the Wilfords and Spaynes. Anyway, I will keep looking.

Marie:Remember, Mr. Spayne was just the last husband of Margaret and Thomas Beaumont, and the Spaynes are also found in London, which is where Emme Spayne was active in her last years, so the likelihood is that London is where they met and the Spaynes' Kentish connections are a red herring as far as the Beaumonts are concerned.

Nicholas said:Also, re. the Vaughan thread you mentioned that Prior Coch/Goch was named Matheu? Are there any reference to him that could date him to see if he fits in with the Tretower timeline?

Marie replies:I wasn't referring to any prior. Matheu Goch is Matthew Gough, the hero of Henry V's campaigns and father of Gwladus (Gladys), mother of the Herberts and the Vaughans of Bredwardine and Tretower.

I am sorry Hilary I do not.. Just a point about the patronimic system. People were known as ap/ son of or ferch /daughter of. So if your name was ap Fychan/Vaughan it doesn't mean you were related to all the Vaughans. It was just your father's name. I think that this is complicating our search for Thomas Vaughan. William Herbert, father of the William who married Katherine Plantagenet, was originally named William ap Thomas. When E4 made him Baron Herbert he took Herbert as his surname.

Marie,

I just wanted to say thanks for very interesting reply! I'd heard about petitioning Parliament, but never really considered how it fit into the over-all picture of Parliamentary development and work. I did a little bit of Googling and it looks as if I've got yet another area to explore!

Thanks again,

Doug

Marie wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Absolutely, the power of the Commons was to approve or reject. It had no legislative power because it didn't provide the 'government'. And if it rejected too much then it had to take a long break

Marie replies:

Only a proportion of Bills were initiated by the King and the government. The rest were either private petitions or petitions put forward by the Commons as a body. Yes, these petitions all had to get through the process of being 'tried' by the triers of petitions before they could get a hearing in parliament, but kings also had to be careful not to annoy the Commons or they would soon find themselves out of money, so Commons petitions actually form a sizeable chunk of the Acts of Parliament that were passed.

Yes, kings could try to rule without parliament for long periods, but lets not confuse Charles I's odd behaviour (which lost him his head) with that of late medieval kin gs. King's couldn't manage without parliament for long because other means of raising additional money, such as benevolences, were just too unpopular and looked unconstitutional. Edward IV managed without parliament for precisely 5 years, no more than that even with the benefit of Louis' pension. In the long run, mollifying parliament was a sounder option than becoming a client state of the French or going round threatening and cajoling your subjects one at a time.

It's the same old rule as ever: Follow the money. The Commons were the source of desperately needed top-up to the royal revenues.

We didn't have democracy, but we didn't have absolute monarchy in the way the French had it either. I was taught that at A level, and it still seems to me to be true although it is important not to exaggerate the powers of parliament in this era. There was an attempt at absolute rule under the Stuarts, but that is a later period and it soon led to the total abolition of the monarc hy. A combination of foreign wars and internal revolutions had won parliament - including the Commons - genuine if limited power within the system. It wasn't really about Magna Carta but about the real-world limitations of the king's power in an era where government had become so expensive, and in a country where all the lords had armies, and ordinary people were very quick to rebel.

It's interesting that, even at the start of the Stuart era, when James I was denying that parliament had ever had any role in determining the royal succession, the rediscovery of TR enabled Parliament to refute that claim. Had the members known their Adam of Usk, they would have realised that this role went back even further than Richard III.

Hilary wrote:

The trouble is regencies/Protectorates don't suit an absolute monarchy because they are in essence government by committee. This is because the Protector doesn't have the powe r of the monarch and is always looking over his shoulder. Even modern day democratic governments need a primus inter pares to hire and fire, make spot decisions etc. And of course the same thing happened when Henry VI became seriously impaired. Had he had a grown heir then they could have waded in and taken over, just like Henry Prince of Wales did for Henry IV. So one could actually see ROY's point of view that the country needed a strong hand, albeit perhaps temporarily. If you look at the minorities of Richard II, Henry VI and Edward VI they have the same symptoms of the jousting for power of 'committee' members. It is essentially doomed - and it blights the rest of the reign.

Marie answers:

I agree that, without someone at the helm during a minority, there will be instability, but that isn't because monarchy was absolute. As you say, even in a democracy someone is needed at the helm.

Also, just to be clear that protectorates and rege ncies were not the same thing, Mancini notwithstandin g (he didn't understand the English system). The clue is in the name. The Protector really only had control over matters of defence and homeland security. A regent was a stand-in for the monarch in the full sense. We didn't go for regencies in England at this period. The choice in 1453 was between QM's bid for regency and having York as Protector. QM's option didn't stand a chance, not only because she was a woman and a foreigner, but also because the English at this period didn't like giving anyone full regency powers (again, as a foreigner, she failed to grasp this).

Either appointment, in the 15th century, had to be ratified by parliament, and its duration was limited by the same body. There were no "de facto" protectors any more.

Hi,
Thanks Marie for the references. By the way, what does LMA stand for? London merchant records may be helpful in giving more information on the Bonauntres or Beaumonts, Spaynes and Wilfords. J-AH did have a section on Ralph Wilford, but wasn't able to find out exactly who he was. I would love to find something to support my suspicion that Thomas Beaumont was passing information to Oliver King about Yorkist dissent, who then passed it on to Henry. There certainly were a number of Yorkist families in Kent who were not far from the Wilfords and Spaynes. Anyway, I will keep looking.
Also, re. the Vaughan thread you mentioned that Prior Coch/Goch was named Matheu? Are there any reference to him that could date him to see if he fits in with the Tretower timeline?
Hilary, that info on Denise Vaughan's family is interesting. Barre (de la Barre) and Barry/Barri are believed to be the same family. One of them, Sir Thomas Barre married Alice Talbot and their daughter Joan married William Catesby. Some online genealogies say that his family originated in Barry, South Wales, but I can't be sure how accurate they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Barry_familyhttps://www.stirnet.com/genie/data/british/bb4fz/bzmisc22.php

Nico




On Tuesday, 13 August 2019, 10:48:21 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

I wanted to pick up on this again because, despite my confusion between Thomas and Robert I would still put money on our Thomas coming from the family of Sir Roger Vaughan's (1471) wife, Denise
I'll quickly summarise why:
1. They originated from Wernddu in Monmouthshire2. They used the surname Vaughan, alternating with Fychan from the mid fourteenth century3. We have the IPMs of her father and brother. Land was primarily owned in England - Herefordshire, Berkshire and Oxfordshire. By 1437 the son had changed his surname to Thomas.4. They also were related to the Herberts through a common grandmother, Maud Barry5. They had an equally illustrious pedigree as the Vaughans of Tretower6. Finally, Margaret Herle had a co-heiress sister Maud who married into the Mortimer (of Chirk) family. She was the grandmother of Hugh Mortimer who died at Wakefield who was married to one Eleanor Cornewall. Eleanor remarried to Richard Crofts and became - presumed Governess to Edward Prince of Wales.
Now proving this is a whole different thing because of the difficulties of Welsh genealogy. Is it possible that the Monmouth Priory document could be a copy and that the name Robert should be Thomas? H
(Ps Mary do you know if the surname Barri is interchangeable with Barre?)
On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 17:04:08 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Folks I might just have got somewhere!
When I looked again at Roger Vaughan of Tretower (died 1471) I realised that his first wife, Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Fychan was also perhaps Denise ferch Thomas ap Philip Vaughan. Sure enough, her father, Thomas ap Philip Fychan also used the name Vaughan, as did his brother William and their father Philip. They hailed from Wernddu Monmouth and Talgarth Brecon.
And then I found this in BHOL:
The half fee was returned in 1431 as in the hands of the king on account of the minority of Richard Duke of York, (fn. 27) but in the following year Thomas ap Philip Vaughan died seised of the manor of Stoke Bliss, which then passed to his son William ap Thomas. (fn. 28) William settled it on his wife Agnes in 1434, (fn. 29) and died in 1437, (fn. 30) leaving a son John, two years of age. It seems possible that this John assumed the name Herle, the maiden name of his grandmother Margaret wife of Thomas Vaughan, (fn. 31) for in 1511 John Herle died seised of the manor, leaving a son George. (fn. 32) In 1512 George died and was succeeded by a brother Thomas, (fn. 33)
Parishes: Stoke Bliss | British History Online

So we might just have got a breakthrough. Our Thomas could have been the brother-in -law of Roger Vaughan, i.e a younger son and kept the name Vaughan. I need to chase up John Herle. H

On Saturday, 10 August 2019, 15:26:02 BST, maryfriend@... [] <> wrote:

Obviously refers to Llandaff which is a suburb of Cardiff and the home of Llandaff Cathedral. Might he have had connections there?

Hilary wrote:

Hilary wrote:

Marie, just a quickie, isn't the mother of the Herberts and Vaughans the famous Gwladys ferch Dafydd Gam

Marie replies:

Ouch! Of course she was. I'd replaced him with tat other Welsh soldier of the period.

Marie,

I just wanted to say thanks for very interesting reply! I'd heard about petitioning Parliament, but never really considered how it fit into the over-all picture of Parliamentary development and work. I did a little bit of Googling and it looks as if I've got yet another area to explore!

You're welcome! Isn't it odd how much fun the law can be?

Marie

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 5:28 pm, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Marie:So we are now agreed that the Commons could and did initiate legislation?I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple only the King being able to legislate regarding the breadth of his own powers. Monarchs were indeed restricted in the later Middle Ages. In practice, parliament did initiate legislation that restricted the King's power because as soon as it had got something through for the needs of one occasion, then a precedent was set which tied the hands of later generations. This is why, after 1399, Parliament's blessing was held to be required for regime change, and evil rule was sufficient legal grounds for the deposition of a monarch.* After 1422 Parliament's blessing was held to be required for a protectorate. I don't think there is much value in trying to distinguish between the Lords and Commons in these matters; both houses needed to be on side.* The learned council appointed in 1399 to find a pretext for deposing Richard II decided that the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II by the then pope for such sins as perjury, sacrilege, sodomitic acts, abasement of his subjects, reduction of the people to servitude, insanity, imbecility of rule, etc, provided a valid legal template for the deposition of an English monarch. This put any future king who wished to rule as a tyrant in a legally vulnerable position.
Hilary:Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Marie:We've moved on a lot from Runneymede by the 1470s, I think. Back when I was studying 15th-16th century history at school, 1399 was held up as a great milestone in the history of parliamentary power, and there was a lot of talk about Lancastrian constitutional rule. All highly exaggerated of course, but there was something in it, and the crises of rule that popped up at intervals throughout the 15th century served further to strengthen the effect.Yes, the king was the fount of law, so in theory could use the royal prerogative to make pronouncements that could not be gainsaid, this was an unusual power and not the way that kings were supposed to rule in general. By our period new laws were made by Statute, and so had to be got through Parliament. Also, Edward IV had unusually little respect for (or perhaps understanding of) legal niceties so the Markham case is not a particularly good example of the justices' lack of autonomy. What happened to Markham caused an uproar and was not repeated. I hear you object that Edward IV had denounced Markham's verdict and had got away with it. But within the year Edward was a prisoner of his own brother and cousin, and within two years was a penniless exile. If kings overstepped the mark, the results for them could be dire. And Markham's ruling that only a subject could arrest for treason became a legal precedentThere was law - written law, custom and precedent - and it was the task of the Justices to interpret it. But the key word is interpretation: even though they were his appointees, the King could not rightfully force the Justices to say that the law said X when it clearly said Y. In fact, when he took the throne, Richard made a statement in Westminster Hall clarifying that, as King, it was his job to "minister" the laws (i.e. as they stood), and that to say "by his justices" and "by his law" was to say the self-same thing (in other words, a king did not have the right to denounce the judgements of his justices as Edward had done in the Markham case). Whether this statement is held to have contributed to legal precedent, you would need to ask an expert in the history of the law, but it is notable that Henry VII, who was clearly very keen to tell the Justices what to say, and leant on them rather a lot, did not always get his own way and had to put up with the best solution that the Justices felt they could live with from a legal viewpoint.

Hilary wrote:
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

Hilary wrote:Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Marie:So we are now agreed that the Commons could and did initiate legislation?I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple only the King being able to legislate regarding the breadth of his own powers. Monarchs were indeed restricted in the later Middle Ages. In practice, parliament did initiate legislation that restricted the King's power because as soon as it had got something through for the needs of one occasion, then a precedent was set which tied the hands of later generations. This is why, after 1399, Parliament's blessing was held to be required for regime change, and evil rule was sufficient legal grounds for the deposition of a monarch.* After 1422 Parliament's blessing was held to be required for a protectorate. I don't think there is much value in trying to distinguish between the Lords and Commons in these matters; both houses needed to be on side.* The learned council appointed in 1399 to find a pretext for deposing Richard II decided that the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II by the then pope for such sins as perjury, sacrilege, sodomitic acts, abasement of his subjects, reduction of the people to servitude, insanity, imbecility of rule, etc, provided a valid legal template for the deposition of an English monarch. This put any future king who wished to rule as a tyrant in a legally vulnerable position.
Hilary:Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Marie:We've moved on a lot from Runneymede by the 1470s, I think. Back when I was studying 15th-16th century history at school, 1399 was held up as a great milestone in the history of parliamentary power, and there was a lot of talk about Lancastrian constitutional rule. All highly exaggerated of course, but there was something in it, and the crises of rule that popped up at intervals throughout the 15th century served further to strengthen the effect.Yes, the king was the fount of law, so in theory could use the royal prerogative to make pronouncements that could not be gainsaid, this was an unusual power and not the way that kings were supposed to rule in general. By our period new laws were made by Statute, and so had to be got through Parliament. Also, Edward IV had unusually little respect for (or perhaps understanding of) legal niceties so the Markham case is not a particularly good example of the justices' lack of autonomy. What happened to Markham caused an uproar and was not repeated. I hear you object that Edward IV had denounced Markham's verdict and had got away with it. But within the year Edward was a prisoner of his own brother and cousin, and within two years was a penniless exile. If kings overstepped the mark, the results for them could be dire. And Markham's ruling that only a subject could arrest for treason became a legal precedentThere was law - written law, custom and precedent - and it was the task of the Justices to interpret it. But the key word is interpretation: even though they were his appointees, the King could not rightfully force the Justices to say that the law said X when it clearly said Y. In fact, when he took the throne, Richard made a statement in Westminster Hall clarifying that, as King, it was his job to "minister" the laws (i.e. as they stood), and that to say "by his justices" and "by his law" was to say the self-same thing (in other words, a king did not have the right to denounce the judgements of his justices as Edward had done in the Markham case). Whether this statement is held to have contributed to legal precedent, you would need to ask an expert in the history of the law, but it is notable that Henry VII, who was clearly very keen to tell the Justices what to say, and leant on them rather a lot, did not always get his own way and had to put up with the best solution that the Justices felt they could live with from a legal viewpoint.

Hilary wrote:
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

Hilary wrote:

Marie I'm sorry but no to all of this. I have a degree in Government & Politics taught by amongst others Bruce Grocott who just happened to be Chancellor of Leicester Uni when Richard was buried

If the king ruled the judges he ruled the Law and that is absolute monarchy. We can't make excuses even if we'd like to. So sorry H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Marie:

Well, I'm going to make another excuse (actually, my first), and stop here, first because I need to get away again and concentrate on some real work, and because I am only prepared to engage in honest debate (i.e. I'm a snowflake who doesn't like being answered with rhetorical devices such as moved goalposts, straw men, rank pulling and so on ).

Anyhow, I am puzzled re the rank - I don't know how much of your degree covered constitutional history as opposed to modern-day government and politics, and how much of the historical segment of it covered the 15th century. I see that Bruce Grocott is a politician with an MA in Local Government so not sure why he is being brought into it.

Academics who are specialists in the government of the period find ample room for debate with each other about the constitutional situation, so I find it very odd that you do not consider it to be allowed.

Marie

I'm happy! We have Margaret and Dynonsia Beaumont, daughters of John Beaumont, Chandler, there. Margaret married John Everard without licence. Dyonisia was forbidden to marry Hugh Wiche, who became another Lord Mayor. And of course Joanna married Philip Malpas. So these Beaumonts weren't nobodies.And they were Beaumonts.What is interesting I looked again at the recorded London will of Thomas Beaumont, Salter. He asks for prayers for the scholars of Oxford University. That's interesting ...... H


Thanks Hilary for the the excellent Beaumont find. I'm still trying to navigate the LMA website which certainly isn't user friendly. These are definitely Beaumonts; are they definitely distinct from the Bonauntres? They were clearly an important family and the prayers for the Oxford scholars is interesting. If they are not the Bonauntres, I'm going back to the idea that they are 'stray' Beaumonts from either the Lords Beaumonts or the Gittisham branch who were descendants of younger son who weren't important enough for the visitations. There are a lot of them especially in Yorkshire. Once I figure the site out, I do some more digging tomorrow.
Nico


On Wednesday, 14 August 2019, 18:22:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Marie:So we are now agreed that the Commons could and did initiate legislation?I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple only the King being able to legislate regarding the breadth of his own powers. Monarchs were indeed restricted in the later Middle Ages. In practice, parliament did initiate legislation that restricted the King's power because as soon as it had got something through for the needs of one occasion, then a precedent was set which tied the hands of later generations. This is why, after 1399, Parliament's blessing was held to be required for regime change, and evil rule was sufficient legal grounds for the deposition of a monarch.* After 1422 Parliament's blessing was held to be required for a protectorate. I don't think there is much value in trying to distinguish between the Lords and Commons in these matters; both houses needed to be on side.* The learned council appointed in 1399 to find a pretext for deposing Richard II decided that the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II by the then pope for such sins as perjury, sacrilege, sodomitic acts, abasement of his subjects, reduction of the people to servitude, insanity, imbecility of rule, etc, provided a valid legal template for the deposition of an English monarch. This put any future king who wished to rule as a tyrant in a legally vulnerable position.
Hilary:Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Marie:We've moved on a lot from Runneymede by the 1470s, I think. Back when I was studying 15th-16th century history at school, 1399 was held up as a great milestone in the history of parliamentary power, and there was a lot of talk about Lancastrian constitutional rule. All highly exaggerated of course, but there was something in it, and the crises of rule that popped up at intervals throughout the 15th century served further to strengthen the effect.Yes, the king was the fount of law, so in theory could use the royal prerogative to make pronouncements that could not be gainsaid, this was an unusual power and not the way that kings were supposed to rule in general. By our period new laws were made by Statute, and so had to be got through Parliament. Also, Edward IV had unusually little respect for (or perhaps understanding of) legal niceties so the Markham case is not a particularly good example of the justices' lack of autonomy. What happened to Markham caused an uproar and was not repeated. I hear you object that Edward IV had denounced Markham's verdict and had got away with it. But within the year Edward was a prisoner of his own brother and cousin, and within two years was a penniless exile. If kings overstepped the mark, the results for them could be dire. And Markham's ruling that only a subject could arrest for treason became a legal precedentThere was law - written law, custom and precedent - and it was the task of the Justices to interpret it. But the key word is interpretation: even though they were his appointees, the King could not rightfully force the Justices to say that the law said X when it clearly said Y. In fact, when he took the throne, Richard made a statement in Westminster Hall clarifying that, as King, it was his job to "minister" the laws (i.e. as they stood), and that to say "by his justices" and "by his law" was to say the self-same thing (in other words, a king did not have the right to denounce the judgements of his justices as Edward had done in the Markham case). Whether this statement is held to have contributed to legal precedent, you would need to ask an expert in the history of the law, but it is notable that Henry VII, who was clearly very keen to tell the Justices what to say, and leant on them rather a lot, did not always get his own way and had to put up with the best solution that the Justices felt they could live with from a legal viewpoint.

Hilary wrote:
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

Hilary wrote:

Marie I'm sorry but no to all of this. I have a degree in Government & Politics taught by amongst others Bruce Grocott who just happened to be Chancellor of Leicester Uni when Richard was buried

If the king ruled the judges he ruled the Law and that is absolute monarchy. We can't make excuses even if we'd like to. So sorry H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Marie:

Well, I'm going to make another excuse (actually, my first), and stop here, first because I need to get away again and concentrate on some real work, and because I am only prepared to engage in honest debate (i.e. I'm a snowflake who doesn't like being answered with rhetorical devices such as moved goalposts, straw men, rank pulling and so on ).

Anyhow, I am puzzled re the rank - I don't know how much of your degree covered constitutional history as opposed to modern-day government and politics, and how much of the historical segment of it covered the 15th century. I see that Bruce Grocott is a politician with an MA in Local Government so not sure why he is being brought into it.

Academics who are specialists in the government of the period find ample room for debate with each other about the constitutional situation, so I find it very odd that you do not consider it to be allowed.

Marie

Hilary wrote:

Marie I'm sorry but no to all of this. I have a degree in Government & Politics taught by amongst others Bruce Grocott who just happened to be Chancellor of Leicester Uni when Richard was buried

If the king ruled the judges he ruled the Law and that is absolute monarchy. We can't make excuses even if we'd like to. So sorry H
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Marie:

Well, I'm going to make another excuse (actually, my first), and stop here, first because I need to get away again and concentrate on some real work, and because I am only prepared to engage in honest debate (i.e. I'm a snowflake who doesn't like being answered with rhetorical devices such as moved goalposts, straw men, rank pulling and so on ).

Anyhow, I am puzzled re the rank - I don't know how much of your degree covered constitutional history as opposed to modern-day government and politics, and how much of the historical segment of it covered the 15th century. I see that Bruce Grocott is a politician with an MA in Local Government so not sure why he is being brought into it.

Academics who are specialists in the government of the period find ample room for debate with each other about the constitutional situation, so I find it very odd that you do not consider it to be allowed.

Marie

Hilary,
The definition you provided for an absolute monarch, A monarch, usually a king or queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom (my emphasis supports, I think, my position.
It's not the not having of a Parliament that defines, to me anyway, whether or not a monarchy is absolute or not, it's what that Parliament does. The original template for the Estates General doesn't appear to have been the same as that for the English Parliament. The Estates General had only two tasks, to vote subsidies and provide a list of items it wished the king and his Council to consider. As best I can tell, no attempt was ever made, especially during our period, to link the voting of those subsidies with royal action on the content of those lists. Why, I don't know. Furthermore, it's lack of meetings between 1483-1560 and again from 1614 to 1789 testifies to its' unimportance from the 1480s onwards. With the result that one can truthfully label Louis XIV an absolute monarch.
Nicholas II, OTOH, and even with a constitution so stacked in his favor as this link demonstrates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constitution_of_1906#Provisions
wasn't, by strict definition of the term, an absolute monarch after 1906. The last sentence in the paragraph immediately preceding that link sums up the situation in Russia at that time very nicely, I think:
With this Act, Russia was officially transformed from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one, although the exact extent of just how constitutional quickly became the subject of debate, based on the emperor's subsequent actions.
So, when Edward I first called a Parliament into being, and then continued to do so, he established a custom that later monarchs failed to follow at their own peril. With every issuance of Writs for Parliaments by Edward I's successors that custom became so hard to ignore as to become little different then a legal requirement. IOW, whether it was a legal constraint or a custom-based constraint, the results were the same:a constraint on the Royal power.
Doug
P.S. BTW, byy opposing I simply mean saying no to a Royal request, while remaining open to compromise. Works both way, of course.
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I got your latest email and it vanished! But I do see what's been misleading you, which is the belief that if you had a 'parliament' of some sort you weren't an absolute monarch because they could keep a check on you. That's not what it's about.. Even the French before 1789 had the Estates General but Louis was an absolute monarch, as indeed was Nicholas in Russia until 1917 and he had his Duma.
There are lots of attempts in 'wiki' to define absolute monarchy. I think about the best is:

a monarch, usually a king or a queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom

Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament. He'd like to be like cousin Louis, but he can't. His brother gets it wrong and William and Mary are 'invited' by Parliament to take over. And the Succession starts to get enshrined in Law by Act of Parliament, drawn up by Parliament. Ironically last night I was watching Lucy Worsley on George I. When short-listing for Anne's successor Parliament rejected some 15 candidates who were more closely related to her - because of their Catholic leanings. The monarch reigns but does not rule; in other words Parliament has the power to get rid; as they effectively did with Edward VIII. And it's the same in the US. The President might have the right to declare war, but he can only serve for two terms, and be impeached. No chance of an absolute ruler there.

(Phew it was in another century I wrote essays on this)

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

Off on another trail ...... :) :) H


On Friday, 16 August 2019, 10:27:19 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, I was out most of yesterday but then success!! I looked in our 'Merchants' Book' about Hugh Wyche and sure enough he was there. Not only was he knighted by Edward but made a KB (more work) and his first wife was the 'sister in law of John Everard'. So Dionysia married him. I then downloaded his will from TNA and indeed his first wife was Dionysia (Beamont).
So the picture in London we have now using just the Beaumont name is:
John Beaumont (woolmonger) and Joan living after 1369
William Beaumont (city official) and Agnes, late 1300s
John Beaumont (Chandler) and Margaret. Died 1417 detailed will.
Silbings of John named in will - Alice, Margery Johanna, Richard and Thomas (Chandler died after 1414)
Children of John named in will:
Richard (Cordwainer and Merchant). Land in Bishopsgate & Chelmsford. Died July 1425 in London. Unmarried. will
Adam - given land inn Billingsgate but not heard of again in London. Could have moved to Chelmsford?
Juliana - married William Middleton (Grocer) will and Philip Malpas (Clothier). Daughters married Sir Ralph Josselyn (Draper) and Sir Thomas Cooke. The latter's daughter married John Forster
Dionysia - married, as his first wife, Sir Hugh Wyche. No children. Wyche's second wife Joan Wodecokdaughter of Richard Wodecok (Salter) - colleague of Thomas (Salter) Beaumont who was probably the son of Thomas Beaumont Chandler (1414)..Hugh Wyche is colleague of mayor Stephen Forster, John's father. He's mentioned in his will.
Margaret - married John Everard, member of the Everard (Mercer) dynasty. Still investigating her.
Thomas (Salter) Beaumont leaves several wills and in his last one he refers to his kinsman, Richard Beaumont. Could this have been the son of Adam and father of 'our' Thomas?
So what we do know is that the Beaumonts in London were part of a mercer dynasty. They mixed with and were related to a plethora of Alderman and Mayors. And they were in the same circles as the families of William Cosyn and Oliver Kyng and perhapsThomas Vaughan who was for a short time keeper of the Great Wardrobe like Cosyn's father and who owned extensive property in London. They were almost certainly known to Edward (and Dorset?). They were right in the middle of his preferred stamping ground - and they were usefully rich! We have that one link to make between a child of Adam and Thomas - or indeed a child of John Beaumont's siblings. But we're crawling there. Thanks for the LMA idea, Marie. Just two entries but they make all the difference.
I haven't dismissed the Bonauntres, it could just be that their names were recorded by someone else. When a vicar changes in a church often the recorded names change in spelling. Here's one clue though. There's an IPM for one Alice Joyne alias Bonauntre in 1497. I haven't been able to find her son William Joyne but there was an Alice Beaumont of Gittisham (born circa 1435) who according to the Visitations married someone called Corun. Could this be her? You see this lady held lands in Devon. H
PS One other thought is that they were not related to either of our known families but came over from France? There are lots of places called Beaumont when you go through Normandy.

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019, 23:51:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I'm happy! We have Margaret and Dynonsia Beaumont, daughters of John Beaumont, Chandler, there. Margaret married John Everard without licence. Dyonisia was forbidden to marry Hugh Wiche, who became another Lord Mayor. And of course Joanna married Philip Malpas. So these Beaumonts weren't nobodies.And they were Beaumonts.What is interesting I looked again at the recorded London will of Thomas Beaumont, Salter. He asks for prayers for the scholars of Oxford University. That's interesting ...... H


Thanks Hilary for the the excellent Beaumont find. I'm still trying to navigate the LMA website which certainly isn't user friendly. These are definitely Beaumonts; are they definitely distinct from the Bonauntres? They were clearly an important family and the prayers for the Oxford scholars is interesting. If they are not the Bonauntres, I'm going back to the idea that they are 'stray' Beaumonts from either the Lords Beaumonts or the Gittisham branch who were descendants of younger son who weren't important enough for the visitations. There are a lot of them especially in Yorkshire. Once I figure the site out, I do some more digging tomorrow.
Nico


On Wednesday, 14 August 2019, 18:22:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Marie:So we are now agreed that the Commons could and did initiate legislation?I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple only the King being able to legislate regarding the breadth of his own powers. Monarchs were indeed restricted in the later Middle Ages. In practice, parliament did initiate legislation that restricted the King's power because as soon as it had got something through for the needs of one occasion, then a precedent was set which tied the hands of later generations. This is why, after 1399, Parliament's blessing was held to be required for regime change, and evil rule was sufficient legal grounds for the deposition of a monarch.* After 1422 Parliament's blessing was held to be required for a protectorate. I don't think there is much value in trying to distinguish between the Lords and Commons in these matters; both houses needed to be on side.* The learned council appointed in 1399 to find a pretext for deposing Richard II decided that the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II by the then pope for such sins as perjury, sacrilege, sodomitic acts, abasement of his subjects, reduction of the people to servitude, insanity, imbecility of rule, etc, provided a valid legal template for the deposition of an English monarch. This put any future king who wished to rule as a tyrant in a legally vulnerable position.
Hilary:Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Marie:We've moved on a lot from Runneymede by the 1470s, I think. Back when I was studying 15th-16th century history at school, 1399 was held up as a great milestone in the history of parliamentary power, and there was a lot of talk about Lancastrian constitutional rule. All highly exaggerated of course, but there was something in it, and the crises of rule that popped up at intervals throughout the 15th century served further to strengthen the effect.Yes, the king was the fount of law, so in theory could use the royal prerogative to make pronouncements that could not be gainsaid, this was an unusual power and not the way that kings were supposed to rule in general. By our period new laws were made by Statute, and so had to be got through Parliament. Also, Edward IV had unusually little respect for (or perhaps understanding of) legal niceties so the Markham case is not a particularly good example of the justices' lack of autonomy. What happened to Markham caused an uproar and was not repeated. I hear you object that Edward IV had denounced Markham's verdict and had got away with it. But within the year Edward was a prisoner of his own brother and cousin, and within two years was a penniless exile. If kings overstepped the mark, the results for them could be dire. And Markham's ruling that only a subject could arrest for treason became a legal precedentThere was law - written law, custom and precedent - and it was the task of the Justices to interpret it. But the key word is interpretation: even though they were his appointees, the King could not rightfully force the Justices to say that the law said X when it clearly said Y. In fact, when he took the throne, Richard made a statement in Westminster Hall clarifying that, as King, it was his job to "minister" the laws (i.e. as they stood), and that to say "by his justices" and "by his law" was to say the self-same thing (in other words, a king did not have the right to denounce the judgements of his justices as Edward had done in the Markham case). Whether this statement is held to have contributed to legal precedent, you would need to ask an expert in the history of the law, but it is notable that Henry VII, who was clearly very keen to tell the Justices what to say, and leant on them rather a lot, did not always get his own way and had to put up with the best solution that the Justices felt they could live with from a legal viewpoint.

Hilary wrote:
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

Hi Doug, see my reply to Marie. It was my fault for not using the word 'independent' Parliament enough.
You see although Parliament could indeed flex its muscles over taxation it couldn't decide to remove or limit the powers of a king in any other way. It couldn't for example chose the members of the Council in the event of a minority; it rubber-stamped Richard's kingship but he'd been king for eight months, what else could it do? It accepted all the other kings who had usurped the throne - it didn't say 'hang on we want to go through a shortlist' as it did with William III or George I. And it wouldn't because members had been sponsored by magnates, including the king himself.
There is one other complication which I haven't mentioned before. An awful lot of MPs of this period were also High Sheriffs. Now as we know, HSs are very important because they report directly to the king and can muster troops. How could one reconcile being a direct servant to the king with the impartiality which an MP should really possess? H

On Friday, 16 August 2019, 01:17:03 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
The definition you provided for an absolute monarch, A monarch, usually a king or queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom (my emphasis supports, I think, my position.
It's not the not having of a Parliament that defines, to me anyway, whether or not a monarchy is absolute or not, it's what that Parliament does. The original template for the Estates General doesn't appear to have been the same as that for the English Parliament. The Estates General had only two tasks, to vote subsidies and provide a list of items it wished the king and his Council to consider. As best I can tell, no attempt was ever made, especially during our period, to link the voting of those subsidies with royal action on the content of those lists. Why, I don't know. Furthermore, it's lack of meetings between 1483-1560 and again from 1614 to 1789 testifies to its' unimportance from the 1480s onwards. With the result that one can truthfully label Louis XIV an absolute monarch.
Nicholas II, OTOH, and even with a constitution so stacked in his favor as this link demonstrates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constitution_of_1906#Provisions
wasn't, by strict definition of the term, an absolute monarch after 1906. The last sentence in the paragraph immediately preceding that link sums up the situation in Russia at that time very nicely, I think:
With this Act, Russia was officially transformed from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one, although the exact extent of just how constitutional quickly became the subject of debate, based on the emperor's subsequent actions.
So, when Edward I first called a Parliament into being, and then continued to do so, he established a custom that later monarchs failed to follow at their own peril. With every issuance of Writs for Parliaments by Edward I's successors that custom became so hard to ignore as to become little different then a legal requirement. IOW, whether it was a legal constraint or a custom-based constraint, the results were the same:a constraint on the Royal power.
Doug
P.S. BTW, byy opposing I simply mean saying no to a Royal request, while remaining open to compromise. Works both way, of course.
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I got your latest email and it vanished! But I do see what's been misleading you, which is the belief that if you had a 'parliament' of some sort you weren't an absolute monarch because they could keep a check on you. That's not what it's about.. Even the French before 1789 had the Estates General but Louis was an absolute monarch, as indeed was Nicholas in Russia until 1917 and he had his Duma.
There are lots of attempts in 'wiki' to define absolute monarchy. I think about the best is:

a monarch, usually a king or a queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom

Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament. He'd like to be like cousin Louis, but he can't. His brother gets it wrong and William and Mary are 'invited' by Parliament to take over. And the Succession starts to get enshrined in Law by Act of Parliament, drawn up by Parliament. Ironically last night I was watching Lucy Worsley on George I. When short-listing for Anne's successor Parliament rejected some 15 candidates who were more closely related to her - because of their Catholic leanings. The monarch reigns but does not rule; in other words Parliament has the power to get rid; as they effectively did with Edward VIII. And it's the same in the US. The President might have the right to declare war, but he can only serve for two terms, and be impeached. No chance of an absolute ruler there.

(Phew it was in another century I wrote essays on this)

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

Off on another trail ...... :) :) H


On Friday, 16 August 2019, 10:27:19 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Nico, I was out most of yesterday but then success!! I looked in our 'Merchants' Book' about Hugh Wyche and sure enough he was there. Not only was he knighted by Edward but made a KB (more work) and his first wife was the 'sister in law of John Everard'. So Dionysia married him. I then downloaded his will from TNA and indeed his first wife was Dionysia (Beamont).
So the picture in London we have now using just the Beaumont name is:
John Beaumont (woolmonger) and Joan living after 1369
William Beaumont (city official) and Agnes, late 1300s
John Beaumont (Chandler) and Margaret. Died 1417 detailed will.
Silbings of John named in will - Alice, Margery Johanna, Richard and Thomas (Chandler died after 1414)
Children of John named in will:
Richard (Cordwainer and Merchant). Land in Bishopsgate & Chelmsford. Died July 1425 in London. Unmarried. will
Adam - given land inn Billingsgate but not heard of again in London. Could have moved to Chelmsford?
Juliana - married William Middleton (Grocer) will and Philip Malpas (Clothier). Daughters married Sir Ralph Josselyn (Draper) and Sir Thomas Cooke. The latter's daughter married John Forster
Dionysia - married, as his first wife, Sir Hugh Wyche. No children. Wyche's second wife Joan Wodecokdaughter of Richard Wodecok (Salter) - colleague of Thomas (Salter) Beaumont who was probably the son of Thomas Beaumont Chandler (1414)..Hugh Wyche is colleague of mayor Stephen Forster, John's father. He's mentioned in his will.
Margaret - married John Everard, member of the Everard (Mercer) dynasty. Still investigating her.
Thomas (Salter) Beaumont leaves several wills and in his last one he refers to his kinsman, Richard Beaumont. Could this have been the son of Adam and father of 'our' Thomas?
So what we do know is that the Beaumonts in London were part of a mercer dynasty. They mixed with and were related to a plethora of Alderman and Mayors. And they were in the same circles as the families of William Cosyn and Oliver Kyng and perhapsThomas Vaughan who was for a short time keeper of the Great Wardrobe like Cosyn's father and who owned extensive property in London. They were almost certainly known to Edward (and Dorset?). They were right in the middle of his preferred stamping ground - and they were usefully rich! We have that one link to make between a child of Adam and Thomas - or indeed a child of John Beaumont's siblings. But we're crawling there. Thanks for the LMA idea, Marie. Just two entries but they make all the difference.
I haven't dismissed the Bonauntres, it could just be that their names were recorded by someone else. When a vicar changes in a church often the recorded names change in spelling. Here's one clue though. There's an IPM for one Alice Joyne alias Bonauntre in 1497. I haven't been able to find her son William Joyne but there was an Alice Beaumont of Gittisham (born circa 1435) who according to the Visitations married someone called Corun. Could this be her? You see this lady held lands in Devon. H
PS One other thought is that they were not related to either of our known families but came over from France? There are lots of places called Beaumont when you go through Normandy.

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019, 23:51:31 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

I'm happy! We have Margaret and Dynonsia Beaumont, daughters of John Beaumont, Chandler, there. Margaret married John Everard without licence. Dyonisia was forbidden to marry Hugh Wiche, who became another Lord Mayor. And of course Joanna married Philip Malpas. So these Beaumonts weren't nobodies.And they were Beaumonts.What is interesting I looked again at the recorded London will of Thomas Beaumont, Salter. He asks for prayers for the scholars of Oxford University. That's interesting ...... H


Thanks Hilary for the the excellent Beaumont find. I'm still trying to navigate the LMA website which certainly isn't user friendly. These are definitely Beaumonts; are they definitely distinct from the Bonauntres? They were clearly an important family and the prayers for the Oxford scholars is interesting. If they are not the Bonauntres, I'm going back to the idea that they are 'stray' Beaumonts from either the Lords Beaumonts or the Gittisham branch who were descendants of younger son who weren't important enough for the visitations. There are a lot of them especially in Yorkshire. Once I figure the site out, I do some more digging tomorrow.
Nico


On Wednesday, 14 August 2019, 18:22:55 BST, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Hilary wrote:Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Marie:So we are now agreed that the Commons could and did initiate legislation?I'm afraid I don't think it is as simple only the King being able to legislate regarding the breadth of his own powers. Monarchs were indeed restricted in the later Middle Ages. In practice, parliament did initiate legislation that restricted the King's power because as soon as it had got something through for the needs of one occasion, then a precedent was set which tied the hands of later generations. This is why, after 1399, Parliament's blessing was held to be required for regime change, and evil rule was sufficient legal grounds for the deposition of a monarch.* After 1422 Parliament's blessing was held to be required for a protectorate. I don't think there is much value in trying to distinguish between the Lords and Commons in these matters; both houses needed to be on side.* The learned council appointed in 1399 to find a pretext for deposing Richard II decided that the deposition of the Emperor Frederick II by the then pope for such sins as perjury, sacrilege, sodomitic acts, abasement of his subjects, reduction of the people to servitude, insanity, imbecility of rule, etc, provided a valid legal template for the deposition of an English monarch. This put any future king who wished to rule as a tyrant in a legally vulnerable position.
Hilary:Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Marie:We've moved on a lot from Runneymede by the 1470s, I think. Back when I was studying 15th-16th century history at school, 1399 was held up as a great milestone in the history of parliamentary power, and there was a lot of talk about Lancastrian constitutional rule. All highly exaggerated of course, but there was something in it, and the crises of rule that popped up at intervals throughout the 15th century served further to strengthen the effect.Yes, the king was the fount of law, so in theory could use the royal prerogative to make pronouncements that could not be gainsaid, this was an unusual power and not the way that kings were supposed to rule in general. By our period new laws were made by Statute, and so had to be got through Parliament. Also, Edward IV had unusually little respect for (or perhaps understanding of) legal niceties so the Markham case is not a particularly good example of the justices' lack of autonomy. What happened to Markham caused an uproar and was not repeated. I hear you object that Edward IV had denounced Markham's verdict and had got away with it. But within the year Edward was a prisoner of his own brother and cousin, and within two years was a penniless exile. If kings overstepped the mark, the results for them could be dire. And Markham's ruling that only a subject could arrest for treason became a legal precedentThere was law - written law, custom and precedent - and it was the task of the Justices to interpret it. But the key word is interpretation: even though they were his appointees, the King could not rightfully force the Justices to say that the law said X when it clearly said Y. In fact, when he took the throne, Richard made a statement in Westminster Hall clarifying that, as King, it was his job to "minister" the laws (i.e. as they stood), and that to say "by his justices" and "by his law" was to say the self-same thing (in other words, a king did not have the right to denounce the judgements of his justices as Edward had done in the Markham case). Whether this statement is held to have contributed to legal precedent, you would need to ask an expert in the history of the law, but it is notable that Henry VII, who was clearly very keen to tell the Justices what to say, and leant on them rather a lot, did not always get his own way and had to put up with the best solution that the Justices felt they could live with from a legal viewpoint.

Hilary wrote:
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament

Marie:

Well, I would say Charles I was our first absolute monarch.

Hi Hilary,
The Beaumonts are coming together! I didn't have much time yesterday, but I haven't managed to get anything out of the LMA archive. I even tried signing up, but since they asked for VAT registration, it didn't seem to be for individuals. How did you find the Dionysia documents?

I would be very surprised if Margaret and Thomas didn't come from this group. It all fits together so well with Cosyn and King. Do you know if there is any connection between Thomas the Salter and John Beaumont the Chandler? 'Kinsman' was used quite liberally, but generally it indicated a cousin of some kind (perhaps one where the exact relationship couldn't be.) It would be useful to find the immediate family of John the Chandler and see if a tree emerges. Could he have been Williams' son? Thomas and Margaret would be the right age group to be grandchildren of Adam. I remember from the last search that the family had some lands near Chelmsford around what is now Southend/Leigh on Sea. I will check the area again for Adam and other Beaumonts again, and take a look at the London wills.

As for their origins, they could be descended from French or Flemish merchants that came to London or alternatively from the first family of Lords Beaumont before the title was taken over by John of Brienne, but the important history for them looks like it goes back to the city of London for several generations.
Nico




Hi Nico, I was out most of yesterday but then success!! I looked in our 'Merchants' Book' about Hugh Wyche and sure enough he was there. Not only was he knighted by Edward but made a KB (more work) and his first wife was the 'sister in law of John Everard'. So Dionysia married him. I then downloaded his will from TNA and indeed his first wife was Dionysia (Beamont).So the picture in London we have now using just the Beaumont name is:
John Beaumont (woolmonger) and Joan living after 1369William Beaumont (city official) and Agnes, late 1300sJohn Beaumont (Chandler) and Margaret. Died 1417 detailed will.Silbings of John named in will - Alice, Margery Johanna, Richard and Thomas (Chandler died after 1414)Children of John named in will:
Richard (Cordwainer and Merchant). Land in Bishopsgate & Chelmsford. Died July 1425 in London. Unmarried. willAdam - given land inn Billingsgate but not heard of again in London. Could have moved to Chelmsford?Juliana - married William Middleton (Grocer) will and Philip Malpas (Clothier). Daughters married Sir Ralph Josselyn (Draper) and Sir Thomas Cooke. The latter's daughter married John ForsterDionysia - married, as his first wife, Sir Hugh Wyche. No children. Wyche's second wife Joan Wodecokdaughter of Richard Wodecok (Salter) - colleague of Thomas (Salter) Beaumont who was probably the son of Thomas Beaumont Chandler (1414)..Hugh Wyche is colleague of mayor Stephen Forster, John's father. He's mentioned in his will.Margaret - married John Everard, member of the Everard (Mercer) dynasty. Still investigating her.
Thomas (Salter) Beaumont leaves several wills and in his last one he refers to his kinsman, Richard Beaumont. Could this have been the son of Adam and father of 'our' Thomas?
So what we do know is that the Beaumonts in London were part of a mercer dynasty. They mixed with and were related to a plethora of Alderman and Mayors. And they were in the same circles as the families of William Cosyn and Oliver Kyng and perhapsThomas Vaughan who was for a short time keeper of the Great Wardrobe like Cosyn's father and who owned extensive property in London. They were almost certainly known to Edward (and Dorset?). They were right in the middle of his preferred stamping ground - and they were usefully rich! We have that one link to make between a child of Adam and Thomas - or indeed a child of John Beaumont's siblings. But we're crawling there. Thanks for the LMA idea, Marie. Just two entries but they make all the difference.
I haven't dismissed the Bonauntres, it could just be that their names were recorded by someone else. When a vicar changes in a church often the recorded names change in spelling. Here's one clue though. There's an IPM for one Alice Joyne alias Bonauntre in 1497. I haven't been able to find her son William Joyne but there was an Alice Beaumont of Gittisham (born circa 1435) who according to the Visitations married someone called Corun. Could this be her? You see this lady held lands in Devon. H
PS One other thought is that they were not related to either of our known families but came over from France? There are lots of places called Beaumont when you go through Normandy.
On Friday, 16 August 2019, 12:45:41 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, see my reply to Marie. It was my fault for not using the word 'independent' Parliament enough.
You see although Parliament could indeed flex its muscles over taxation it couldn't decide to remove or limit the powers of a king in any other way. It couldn't for example chose the members of the Council in the event of a minority; it rubber-stamped Richard's kingship but he'd been king for eight months, what else could it do? It accepted all the other kings who had usurped the throne - it didn't say 'hang on we want to go through a shortlist' as it did with William III or George I. And it wouldn't because members had been sponsored by magnates, including the king himself.
There is one other complication which I haven't mentioned before. An awful lot of MPs of this period were also High Sheriffs. Now as we know, HSs are very important because they report directly to the king and can muster troops. How could one reconcile being a direct servant to the king with the impartiality which an MP should really possess? H

On Friday, 16 August 2019, 01:17:03 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
The definition you provided for an absolute monarch, A monarch, usually a king or queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom (my emphasis supports, I think, my position.
It's not the not having of a Parliament that defines, to me anyway, whether or not a monarchy is absolute or not, it's what that Parliament does. The original template for the Estates General doesn't appear to have been the same as that for the English Parliament. The Estates General had only two tasks, to vote subsidies and provide a list of items it wished the king and his Council to consider. As best I can tell, no attempt was ever made, especially during our period, to link the voting of those subsidies with royal action on the content of those lists. Why, I don't know. Furthermore, it's lack of meetings between 1483-1560 and again from 1614 to 1789 testifies to its' unimportance from the 1480s onwards. With the result that one can truthfully label Louis XIV an absolute monarch.
Nicholas II, OTOH, and even with a constitution so stacked in his favor as this link demonstrates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constitution_of_1906#Provisions
wasn't, by strict definition of the term, an absolute monarch after 1906. The last sentence in the paragraph immediately preceding that link sums up the situation in Russia at that time very nicely, I think:
With this Act, Russia was officially transformed from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one, although the exact extent of just how constitutional quickly became the subject of debate, based on the emperor's subsequent actions.
So, when Edward I first called a Parliament into being, and then continued to do so, he established a custom that later monarchs failed to follow at their own peril. With every issuance of Writs for Parliaments by Edward I's successors that custom became so hard to ignore as to become little different then a legal requirement. IOW, whether it was a legal constraint or a custom-based constraint, the results were the same:a constraint on the Royal power.
Doug
P.S. BTW, byy opposing I simply mean saying no to a Royal request, while remaining open to compromise. Works both way, of course.
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I got your latest email and it vanished! But I do see what's been misleading you, which is the belief that if you had a 'parliament' of some sort you weren't an absolute monarch because they could keep a check on you. That's not what it's about.. Even the French before 1789 had the Estates General but Louis was an absolute monarch, as indeed was Nicholas in Russia until 1917 and he had his Duma.
There are lots of attempts in 'wiki' to define absolute monarchy. I think about the best is:

a monarch, usually a king or a queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom

Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament. He'd like to be like cousin Louis, but he can't. His brother gets it wrong and William and Mary are 'invited' by Parliament to take over. And the Succession starts to get enshrined in Law by Act of Parliament, drawn up by Parliament. Ironically last night I was watching Lucy Worsley on George I. When short-listing for Anne's successor Parliament rejected some 15 candidates who were more closely related to her - because of their Catholic leanings. The monarch reigns but does not rule; in other words Parliament has the power to get rid; as they effectively did with Edward VIII. And it's the same in the US. The President might have the right to declare war, but he can only serve for two terms, and be impeached. No chance of an absolute ruler there.

(Phew it was in another century I wrote essays on this)

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

Hi Nico, the LMA was a one-liner saying that she'd been forbidden to marry Hugh Wyche. So then I went to the 'Merchants of Medieval London' book which said Wyche's first wife was the sister in law of John Everard. It also said he had a PCC will. So I downloaded it - in English and easy to read (well easier than most)and it talks about praying for the souls of his late wives Dionysia and Joan.
See my further emails on the rest. If you'd like a copy of the will send me a separate email and I'll upload it to that - you can't to the R3 website. It also talks a lot (and it's long) about St Albans Abbey.
I think we should be awarded the Phil Stone medal for persistence :) :) H
On Friday, 16 August 2019, 14:19:53 BST, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary,
The Beaumonts are coming together! I didn't have much time yesterday, but I haven't managed to get anything out of the LMA archive. I even tried signing up, but since they asked for VAT registration, it didn't seem to be for individuals. How did you find the Dionysia documents?

I would be very surprised if Margaret and Thomas didn't come from this group. It all fits together so well with Cosyn and King. Do you know if there is any connection between Thomas the Salter and John Beaumont the Chandler? 'Kinsman' was used quite liberally, but generally it indicated a cousin of some kind (perhaps one where the exact relationship couldn't be.) It would be useful to find the immediate family of John the Chandler and see if a tree emerges. Could he have been Williams' son? Thomas and Margaret would be the right age group to be grandchildren of Adam. I remember from the last search that the family had some lands near Chelmsford around what is now Southend/Leigh on Sea. I will check the area again for Adam and other Beaumonts again, and take a look at the London wills.

As for their origins, they could be descended from French or Flemish merchants that came to London or alternatively from the first family of Lords Beaumont before the title was taken over by John of Brienne, but the important history for them looks like it goes back to the city of London for several generations.
Nico




Hi Nico, I was out most of yesterday but then success!! I looked in our 'Merchants' Book' about Hugh Wyche and sure enough he was there. Not only was he knighted by Edward but made a KB (more work) and his first wife was the 'sister in law of John Everard'. So Dionysia married him. I then downloaded his will from TNA and indeed his first wife was Dionysia (Beamont).So the picture in London we have now using just the Beaumont name is:
John Beaumont (woolmonger) and Joan living after 1369William Beaumont (city official) and Agnes, late 1300sJohn Beaumont (Chandler) and Margaret. Died 1417 detailed will.Silbings of John named in will - Alice, Margery Johanna, Richard and Thomas (Chandler died after 1414)Children of John named in will:
Richard (Cordwainer and Merchant). Land in Bishopsgate & Chelmsford. Died July 1425 in London. Unmarried. willAdam - given land inn Billingsgate but not heard of again in London. Could have moved to Chelmsford?Juliana - married William Middleton (Grocer) will and Philip Malpas (Clothier). Daughters married Sir Ralph Josselyn (Draper) and Sir Thomas Cooke. The latter's daughter married John ForsterDionysia - married, as his first wife, Sir Hugh Wyche. No children. Wyche's second wife Joan Wodecokdaughter of Richard Wodecok (Salter) - colleague of Thomas (Salter) Beaumont who was probably the son of Thomas Beaumont Chandler (1414)..Hugh Wyche is colleague of mayor Stephen Forster, John's father. He's mentioned in his will.Margaret - married John Everard, member of the Everard (Mercer) dynasty. Still investigating her.
Thomas (Salter) Beaumont leaves several wills and in his last one he refers to his kinsman, Richard Beaumont. Could this have been the son of Adam and father of 'our' Thomas?
So what we do know is that the Beaumonts in London were part of a mercer dynasty. They mixed with and were related to a plethora of Alderman and Mayors. And they were in the same circles as the families of William Cosyn and Oliver Kyng and perhapsThomas Vaughan who was for a short time keeper of the Great Wardrobe like Cosyn's father and who owned extensive property in London. They were almost certainly known to Edward (and Dorset?). They were right in the middle of his preferred stamping ground - and they were usefully rich! We have that one link to make between a child of Adam and Thomas - or indeed a child of John Beaumont's siblings. But we're crawling there. Thanks for the LMA idea, Marie. Just two entries but they make all the difference.
I haven't dismissed the Bonauntres, it could just be that their names were recorded by someone else. When a vicar changes in a church often the recorded names change in spelling. Here's one clue though. There's an IPM for one Alice Joyne alias Bonauntre in 1497. I haven't been able to find her son William Joyne but there was an Alice Beaumont of Gittisham (born circa 1435) who according to the Visitations married someone called Corun. Could this be her? You see this lady held lands in Devon. H
PS One other thought is that they were not related to either of our known families but came over from France? There are lots of places called Beaumont when you go through Normandy.
On Friday, 16 August 2019, 12:45:41 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Doug, see my reply to Marie. It was my fault for not using the word 'independent' Parliament enough.
You see although Parliament could indeed flex its muscles over taxation it couldn't decide to remove or limit the powers of a king in any other way. It couldn't for example chose the members of the Council in the event of a minority; it rubber-stamped Richard's kingship but he'd been king for eight months, what else could it do? It accepted all the other kings who had usurped the throne - it didn't say 'hang on we want to go through a shortlist' as it did with William III or George I. And it wouldn't because members had been sponsored by magnates, including the king himself.
There is one other complication which I haven't mentioned before. An awful lot of MPs of this period were also High Sheriffs. Now as we know, HSs are very important because they report directly to the king and can muster troops. How could one reconcile being a direct servant to the king with the impartiality which an MP should really possess? H

On Friday, 16 August 2019, 01:17:03 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

Hilary,
The definition you provided for an absolute monarch, A monarch, usually a king or queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom (my emphasis supports, I think, my position.
It's not the not having of a Parliament that defines, to me anyway, whether or not a monarchy is absolute or not, it's what that Parliament does. The original template for the Estates General doesn't appear to have been the same as that for the English Parliament. The Estates General had only two tasks, to vote subsidies and provide a list of items it wished the king and his Council to consider. As best I can tell, no attempt was ever made, especially during our period, to link the voting of those subsidies with royal action on the content of those lists. Why, I don't know. Furthermore, it's lack of meetings between 1483-1560 and again from 1614 to 1789 testifies to its' unimportance from the 1480s onwards. With the result that one can truthfully label Louis XIV an absolute monarch.
Nicholas II, OTOH, and even with a constitution so stacked in his favor as this link demonstrates:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constitution_of_1906#Provisions
wasn't, by strict definition of the term, an absolute monarch after 1906. The last sentence in the paragraph immediately preceding that link sums up the situation in Russia at that time very nicely, I think:
With this Act, Russia was officially transformed from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional one, although the exact extent of just how constitutional quickly became the subject of debate, based on the emperor's subsequent actions.
So, when Edward I first called a Parliament into being, and then continued to do so, he established a custom that later monarchs failed to follow at their own peril. With every issuance of Writs for Parliaments by Edward I's successors that custom became so hard to ignore as to become little different then a legal requirement. IOW, whether it was a legal constraint or a custom-based constraint, the results were the same:a constraint on the Royal power.
Doug
P.S. BTW, byy opposing I simply mean saying no to a Royal request, while remaining open to compromise. Works both way, of course.
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I got your latest email and it vanished! But I do see what's been misleading you, which is the belief that if you had a 'parliament' of some sort you weren't an absolute monarch because they could keep a check on you. That's not what it's about.. Even the French before 1789 had the Estates General but Louis was an absolute monarch, as indeed was Nicholas in Russia until 1917 and he had his Duma.
There are lots of attempts in 'wiki' to define absolute monarchy. I think about the best is:

a monarch, usually a king or a queen  whose actions are restricted neither by written law nor by custom

Now although medieval Parliament could restrict by, say, denying money it couldn't restrict all the actions of the monarch because it couldn't initiate legislation that would restrict his power. And if they did they'd have to get it through the Lords. And the if the Lords were so inclined the king could stop that by appointing more Lords to block it - a tactic invoked by governments a couple of times in the last two hundred years (though they were trying to get stuff through).
Moreover, the king ruled, he made the Law, he managed its interpretation by his Judges, so as we've seen, he couldn't be restricted by it. Thus he could dismiss Parliament and he could dismiss Judges. So there was no control over him but advice, brute power, or the thought of another trip to Runnymede.
Thus our first non-absolute monarch is Charles II - invited by the army and Parliament. He'd like to be like cousin Louis, but he can't. His brother gets it wrong and William and Mary are 'invited' by Parliament to take over. And the Succession starts to get enshrined in Law by Act of Parliament, drawn up by Parliament. Ironically last night I was watching Lucy Worsley on George I. When short-listing for Anne's successor Parliament rejected some 15 candidates who were more closely related to her - because of their Catholic leanings. The monarch reigns but does not rule; in other words Parliament has the power to get rid; as they effectively did with Edward VIII. And it's the same in the US. The President might have the right to declare war, but he can only serve for two terms, and be impeached. No chance of an absolute ruler there.

(Phew it was in another century I wrote essays on this)

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

Monarchy was the most common form of government until the 19th century. Monarchy is a form of government in which a single family rules from generation to generation. The power, or sovereignty, is personified in a single individual.

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

v. 20. 1461-1471

Hi Hilary,
Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this. I have been here and there recently and will be back on the forum properly in early September, but I will keep dipping into the Beaumonts while I can, and going through the HT/King correspondence to see if I get any new insights. I agree with you about King and Beaumont. I find the timing of Beaumont's ecclesiastical rise significant - from the 1490s onwards. If King was Beaumont's mentor, and Beaumont was close to Brampton, my suspicion is that the Setubal Testimonies, the Confession and the Werbeques as PW's parents may have originated with them. If that was the case, then King was set up for life.
I tried the LMA link, but it wouldn't download. It is a very difficult website. Which section did you use for the search? The Watlington info was interesting. Given the general area, perhaps they were descendants of the Beaumonts Earls of Warwick.
Nico


Just a thought. Now we know that Oliver Kyng was spying (on PW in this instance) for HT. HT tells us himself in a letter to him and we also know that Kyng was one of HT's very few and closest friends. PW tells us that. What if Kyng promoted Thomas Beaumont and kept him close to him as a way of spying on any communication between him, his sister and Brampton? I think that quite likely.
This is the LMA page on Margaret & Dionysia:https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/201849102/1/0?SEARCH&SHOWSINGLE=N&RANKING=N,NO_RANK_SORT=Y&ERRMSG=[WWW_LMA]err.htm&DATABASE=LMA_DESCRIPTION&REPORT=WEB_SUMMARY

On Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 08:53:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

Hi Hilary,
Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this. I have been here and there recently and will be back on the forum properly in early September, but I will keep dipping into the Beaumonts while I can, and going through the HT/King correspondence to see if I get any new insights. I agree with you about King and Beaumont. I find the timing of Beaumont's ecclesiastical rise significant - from the 1490s onwards. If King was Beaumont's mentor, and Beaumont was close to Brampton, my suspicion is that the Setubal Testimonies, the Confession and the Werbeques as PW's parents may have originated with them. If that was the case, then King was set up for life.
I tried the LMA link, but it wouldn't download. It is a very difficult website. Which section did you use for the search? The Watlington info was interesting. Given the general area, perhaps they were descendants of the Beaumonts Earls of Warwick.
Nico


Just a thought. Now we know that Oliver Kyng was spying (on PW in this instance) for HT. HT tells us himself in a letter to him and we also know that Kyng was one of HT's very few and closest friends. PW tells us that. What if Kyng promoted Thomas Beaumont and kept him close to him as a way of spying on any communication between him, his sister and Brampton? I think that quite likely.
This is the LMA page on Margaret & Dionysia:https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/201849102/1/0?SEARCH&SHOWSINGLE=N&RANKING=N,NO_RANK_SORT=Y&ERRMSG=[WWW_LMA]err.htm&DATABASE=LMA_DESCRIPTION&REPORT=WEB_SUMMARY

On Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 08:53:14 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

Doug, I'll reply to you post below when I have a bit more time - I'm school-holidaying today.
By pure co-incidence last night I watched the 'History of Scotland' with the excellent Neil Oliver. He was on the Balliol/Comyn/Bruce bit. Now what I learned is that the bishops in Scotland were not under the rule of the king, they were directly under the Pope. How Morton would have loved that!!
So, when they didn't like their king (Balliol) they went straight off to the Pope and complained and he sanctioned them searching for and appointing another. Similarly they could complain about foreign rulers (Edward I) and get them ex-communicated. Fascinating stuff!
But kings were still absolute monarchs!! :) :) H
On Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 08:53:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.

On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 10:58 pm, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Hi Hilary.Thanks for the Beaumont-Spayne links. I had a look at the William Beaumont and Isabel Wellington, and most sources say he is from the Shirwell Beaumonts. I will keep digging and I look forward to what you have on the Luton Guild.
Nico

On Thursday, 22 August 2019, 10:41:46 BST, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <> wrote:

Doug, I'll reply to you post below when I have a bit more time - I'm school-holidaying today.
By pure co-incidence last night I watched the 'History of Scotland' with the excellent Neil Oliver. He was on the Balliol/Comyn/Bruce bit. Now what I learned is that the bishops in Scotland were not under the rule of the king, they were directly under the Pope. How Morton would have loved that!!
So, when they didn't like their king (Balliol) they went straight off to the Pope and complained and he sanctioned them searching for and appointing another. Similarly they could complain about foreign rulers (Edward I) and get them ex-communicated. Fascinating stuff!
But kings were still absolute monarchs!! :) :) H
On Tuesday, 20 August 2019, 08:53:15 BST, 'Doug Stamate' destama@... [] <> wrote:

There are two main types of monarchy that differ based on the level of power held by the individual or family currently in power. Absolute monarchy exists when the monarch has no or few legal limitations in political matters. Constitutional monarchies, which are more common, exist when the monarch retains a distinctive legal and ceremonial role but exercises limited or no political power.

The most familiar example of a monarchy is the constitutional monarchy that exists in the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state of the U.K. as well as monarch of fifteen other independent countries. She and the royal family have ceremonial roles but do not make up the laws that govern the people.