Rumours, Buckingham, Morton and the October Rebellions


Hilary Jones
 

As we've moved out of the realms of Buckingham's finances I've changed the topic to the above.
One of the descriptions of what supposedly happened is in the Great Chronicle. I've referenced it below so you can read it for yourselves:
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoflond00kinguoft/page/191 
Now the implication here would be that several gentlemen had turned to Buckingham for leadership against Richard because, amongst other things, he had killed Edward's sons. Fabyan is right that the majority were from Kent but he doesn't really explain why they rebelled (in several places as we know) before they got to Buckingham - hence he had to flee. And, if Mancini is to be believed (and I have serious doubts there) then London had been filled with armed men belonging to both Richard and Buckingham. So why would these gentlemen turn to Buckingham for help if he was Richard's biggest ally? Similarly Mancini says that the other lords were fearful of what might happen to them after the death of Hastings, but we know that Richard wrote to at least one of them soon afterwards (Stanley) thanking him for his support.
Now this bit of the GC was written about 1509, so it would have to be reliant on the recollection of others. Fabyan, as a merchant, is probably pretty sound on things affecting the City, the Mayor and the Crafts, less so on events outside London. Mancini left London early in July 1483 so he doesn't reference the rebellion at all. Croyland (1486) was almost certainly influenced, if not written by, the new regime.
The problem with recollections is that what started as speculation or rumour can often over time be interpreted as fact. If, for example, we took what the Hansa Barnet letter tells us, and that on the surface seems a pretty pure unbiased primary document, we would believe that MOA landed in Cornwall. Luckily we have other information, but the letter was not written with any attempt to mislead, it just contained one bit of misinformation. And that is I think what happens when people remember rumour - it becomes real.
So I think one of the key things we have to ask is who started these rumours? I write this at a time when the UK is more adrift with rumour and speculation than it's been since the 1990s - and though in this case it did start with a statement and the media it has, like in 1483, magnified by oral speculation, retelling and individual prejudices. I reckon there's something in British blood that has always loved a good rumour. And an anti-Richard rumour in the summer of 1483 would benefit at least two groups that I can think of - the Woodvilles and the French.
There's one problem with Woodville endorsement of anything going through to October and that is, if the princes were dead they would have no cause - a rather large problem that even if the consolation would be an EOY/HT marriage and that, I don't think, had been mooted yet?
The French, on the other hand, had every reason not to want a strong warrior king on board - one who might at some stage form an alliance with Maximillien and thwart their ambitions in the Low Countries.
So where does Morton come into this, and potentially Oliver King? The only inducement I can think of for either of them at this time would be money. And that would be either for displacing Richard, or if that were not achievable, for ensuring that there were continuing rumbles of discontent brought on by rumour - particularly in the Capital.
I truly can't think of anything else at this stage in 1483. H 


Doug Stamate
 

 
 
 
Hilary,
Yes, it’s obvious that the GC has some glaring mistakes and, as you say, they are likely due to faulty memory. What I do find interesting is that the GC flatly states that the boys were killed immediately after Hastings’ execution and can only presume that bit reflects “What everyone knew” once Henry was on the throne. IOW, by the time the GC was written, the “reason” for the October Rebellion had been switched from returning young Edward to the throne to that of HT making his first attempt to nab it for himself.
However, w
hen we consider who it was that did rebel, other than Buckingham, it seems almost a certainty that the aim of the rebellion was to return Edward to the throne. HT can be brought in via a deal between his mother and EW, in order to bring in whatever Lancastrian support could be mustered. Once Henry had the throne, of course, such a motive would either be down-played or completely omitted.
As you say, the Woodvilles would most definitely not benefit from such rumors and can, I think, safely be ruled out as the originators of the rumor. It is possible, of course, that the rumor was based on someone (even possibly EW) saying they feared something such as that might happen, only to have that qualifier omitted as the story got passed along.
If Buckingham was intending to hijack the rebellion in his own favor, then he could be considered a possible source, but spreading such a rumor while the rebels were still mustering could very easily throw the rebellion into complete disarray. For such a rumor to have had any effect on popular emotions, it would have had to been spread well before the rebellion broke out and, unless my memory is mistaken, that didn’t happen – the rumor spread (was spread?) almost simultaneously with the outbreak of the rebellion. The circles Mancini moved in apparently were trying to gin up some such fears on the boys’ behalf, but no one seems to have recorded it being widespread, or spread at all, prior to the rebellion.
Another possibility would be Morton, but I also have trouble arriving at a motive. Unless his reputation about understanding people was completely over-blown, Morton would have recognized the danger such a rumor would represent to the success of the rebellion. So, if he did spread the rumor it would have been with the intention of preventing the rebellion from succeeding. But then the question becomes: Why would he do that? Did Morton realize that there was no chance of the rebellion succeeding and decided to “help” its’ demise along by undercutting further support? There’d also have been the added benefit (?) that the failure of the rebellion removed three people standing between Henry Tudor and the throne – Buckingham via execution and the boys by demonstrating there simply wasn’t enough support for a restoration.
The last possibility is that the rumor might have had their origin in a garbled version of that August attempt to “rescue” the boys; with the story evolving from just a failed attempt to their dying.
The French do seem to have latched onto the rumor, officially anyway, in 1484, I believe. That doesn’t rule out the possibility they “helped” it along earlier, of course.
 
 
 
Doug
 
Hilary wrote:
“As we've moved out of the realms of Buckingham's finances I've changed the topic to the above.
One of the descriptions of what supposedly happened is in the Great Chronicle. I've referenced it below so you can read it for yourselves:
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoflond00kinguoft/page/191 
Now the implication here would be that several gentlemen had turned to Buckingham for leadership against Richard because, amongst other things, he had killed Edward's sons. Fabyan is right that the majority were from Kent but he doesn't really explain why they rebelled (in several places as we know) before they got to Buckingham - hence he had to flee. And, if Mancini is to be believed (and I have serious doubts there) then London had been filled with armed men belonging to both Richard and Buckingham. So why would these gentlemen turn to Buckingham for help if he was Richard's biggest ally? Similarly Mancini says that the other lords were fearful of what might happen to them after the death of Hastings, but we know that Richard wrote to at least one of them soon afterwards (Stanley) thanking him for his support.
Now this bit of the GC was written about 1509, so it would have to be reliant on the recollection of others. Fabyan, as a merchant, is probably pretty sound on things affecting the City, the Mayor and the Crafts, less so on events outside London. Mancini left London early in July 1483 so he doesn't reference the rebellion at all. Croyland (1486) was almost certainly influenced, if not written by, the new regime.
The problem with recollections is that what started as speculation or rumour can often over time be interpreted as fact. If, for example, we took what the Hansa Barnet letter tells us, and that on the surface seems a pretty pure unbiased primary document, we would believe that MOA landed in Cornwall. Luckily we have other information, but the letter was not written with any attempt to mislead, it just contained one bit of misinformation. And that is I think what happens when people remember rumour - it becomes real.
So I think one of the key things we have to ask is who started these rumours? I write this at a time when the UK is more adrift with rumour and speculation than it's been since the 1990s - and though in this case it did start with a statement and the media it has, like in 1483, magnified by oral speculation, retelling and individual prejudices. I reckon there's something in British blood that has always loved a good rumour. And an anti-Richard rumour in the summer of 1483 would benefit at least two groups that I can think of - the Woodvilles and the French.
There's one problem with Woodville endorsement of anything going through to October and that is, if the princes were dead they would have no cause - a rather large problem that even if the consolation would be an EOY/HT marriage and that, I don't think, had been mooted yet?
The French, on the other hand, had every reason not to want a strong warrior king on board - one who might at some stage form an alliance with Maximillien and thwart their ambitions in the Low Countries.
So where does Morton come into this, and potentially Oliver King? The only inducement I can think of for either of them at this time would be money. And that would be either for displacing Richard, or if that were not achievable, for ensuring that there were continuing rumbles of discontent brought on by rumour - particularly in the Capital.
I truly can't think of anything else at this stage in 1483.”
 
 
 
 

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


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.

Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?

Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere

 'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'

Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.

Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.

The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?    H


On Friday, 17 January 2020, 07:38:45 GMT, Doug Stamate <destama@...> wrote:




 
 
 
Hilary,
Yes, it’s obvious that the GC has some glaring mistakes and, as you say, they are likely due to faulty memory. What I do find interesting is that the GC flatly states that the boys were killed immediately after Hastings’ execution and can only presume that bit reflects “What everyone knew” once Henry was on the throne. IOW, by the time the GC was written, the “reason” for the October Rebellion had been switched from returning young Edward to the throne to that of HT making his first attempt to nab it for himself.
However, w
hen we consider who it was that did rebel, other than Buckingham, it seems almost a certainty that the aim of the rebellion was to return Edward to the throne. HT can be brought in via a deal between his mother and EW, in order to bring in whatever Lancastrian support could be mustered. Once Henry had the throne, of course, such a motive would either be down-played or completely omitted.
As you say, the Woodvilles would most definitely not benefit from such rumors and can, I think, safely be ruled out as the originators of the rumor. It is possible, of course, that the rumor was based on someone (even possibly EW) saying they feared something such as that might happen, only to have that qualifier omitted as the story got passed along.
If Buckingham was intending to hijack the rebellion in his own favor, then he could be considered a possible source, but spreading such a rumor while the rebels were still mustering could very easily throw the rebellion into complete disarray. For such a rumor to have had any effect on popular emotions, it would have had to been spread well before the rebellion broke out and, unless my memory is mistaken, that didn’t happen – the rumor spread (was spread?) almost simultaneously with the outbreak of the rebellion. The circles Mancini moved in apparently were trying to gin up some such fears on the boys’ behalf, but no one seems to have recorded it being widespread, or spread at all, prior to the rebellion.
Another possibility would be Morton, but I also have trouble arriving at a motive. Unless his reputation about understanding people was completely over-blown, Morton would have recognized the danger such a rumor would represent to the success of the rebellion. So, if he did spread the rumor it would have been with the intention of preventing the rebellion from succeeding. But then the question becomes: Why would he do that? Did Morton realize that there was no chance of the rebellion succeeding and decided to “help” its’ demise along by undercutting further support? There’d also have been the added benefit (?) that the failure of the rebellion removed three people standing between Henry Tudor and the throne – Buckingham via execution and the boys by demonstrating there simply wasn’t enough support for a restoration.
The last possibility is that the rumor might have had their origin in a garbled version of that August attempt to “rescue” the boys; with the story evolving from just a failed attempt to their dying.
The French do seem to have latched onto the rumor, officially anyway, in 1484, I believe. That doesn’t rule out the possibility they “helped” it along earlier, of course.
 
 
 
Doug
 
Hilary wrote:
“As we've moved out of the realms of Buckingham's finances I've changed the topic to the above.
One of the descriptions of what supposedly happened is in the Great Chronicle. I've referenced it below so you can read it for yourselves:
https://archive.org/details/chroniclesoflond00kinguoft/page/191 
Now the implication here would be that several gentlemen had turned to Buckingham for leadership against Richard because, amongst other things, he had killed Edward's sons. Fabyan is right that the majority were from Kent but he doesn't really explain why they rebelled (in several places as we know) before they got to Buckingham - hence he had to flee. And, if Mancini is to be believed (and I have serious doubts there) then London had been filled with armed men belonging to both Richard and Buckingham. So why would these gentlemen turn to Buckingham for help if he was Richard's biggest ally? Similarly Mancini says that the other lords were fearful of what might happen to them after the death of Hastings, but we know that Richard wrote to at least one of them soon afterwards (Stanley) thanking him for his support.
Now this bit of the GC was written about 1509, so it would have to be reliant on the recollection of others. Fabyan, as a merchant, is probably pretty sound on things affecting the City, the Mayor and the Crafts, less so on events outside London. Mancini left London early in July 1483 so he doesn't reference the rebellion at all. Croyland (1486) was almost certainly influenced, if not written by, the new regime.
The problem with recollections is that what started as speculation or rumour can often over time be interpreted as fact. If, for example, we took what the Hansa Barnet letter tells us, and that on the surface seems a pretty pure unbiased primary document, we would believe that MOA landed in Cornwall. Luckily we have other information, but the letter was not written with any attempt to mislead, it just contained one bit of misinformation. And that is I think what happens when people remember rumour - it becomes real.
So I think one of the key things we have to ask is who started these rumours? I write this at a time when the UK is more adrift with rumour and speculation than it's been since the 1990s - and though in this case it did start with a statement and the media it has, like in 1483, magnified by oral speculation, retelling and individual prejudices. I reckon there's something in British blood that has always loved a good rumour. And an anti-Richard rumour in the summer of 1483 would benefit at least two groups that I can think of - the Woodvilles and the French.
There's one problem with Woodville endorsement of anything going through to October and that is, if the princes were dead they would have no cause - a rather large problem that even if the consolation would be an EOY/HT marriage and that, I don't think, had been mooted yet?
The French, on the other hand, had every reason not to want a strong warrior king on board - one who might at some stage form an alliance with Maximillien and thwart their ambitions in the Low Countries.
So where does Morton come into this, and potentially Oliver King? The only inducement I can think of for either of them at this time would be money. And that would be either for displacing Richard, or if that were not achievable, for ensuring that there were continuing rumbles of discontent brought on by rumour - particularly in the Capital.
I truly can't think of anything else at this stage in 1483.”
 
 
 
 

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


Doug Stamate
 

 
 
 
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.
Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?”
 
Doug here:
My understanding is that those rebels in Kent were supposed to join up and head for London, which is something Richard did his best to provide against (successfully, too). It’s also a good tactical move to try and force your opponent to divide his forces, with the presumption that such a move would increase one’s own chances. So we have risings in Kent and just to the west (I don’t know the names of those counties) which would almost certainly cause a concentration of Richard’s men to London to protect the capital. Then have risings in the West Country where Tudor was expected to land with his reinforcements from Brittany. IOW, Richard would be forced from the outset to divide his forces or risk either losing London or having the rebellion in the West develop into something really serious. So I think the reason Buckingham was still in Brecon was because people were mislead by the grants Buckingham had received from Richard; grants that, on the surface anyway, made Buckingham appear to control much of Wales as well as his own patrimony. Seemingly, no consideration was taken on whether Buckingham actually could raise troops from those grants (or even his own properties).
So, until Tudor had actually landed, Brecon was a good mustering site for all those expected troops. Once the troops had gathered, I imagine they would have moved towards Gloucester while Tudor did the same from whichever port he’d landed at.
 
Hilary wrote:
“Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere
'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'
Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.”
 
Doug here:
The plot against Richard and Buckingham, which cost Hastings’ his head had, I think, two parts. The second part followed on from the failure of the first part, which was to have the Council reject the Pre-Contract. I think Rotherham, Morton and King were well known as opponents of accepting the Pre-Contract and likely were also known to have lobbied other Council members to reject it. That would have been “Part One.” “Part Two” would have been the plot aimed at killing Richard and Buckingham, quite possibly originated by Dorset, who didn’t escape to Brittany until several months later. However, actual proof of the involvement of Rotherham, Morton and King in that second part may have been lacking, so they were simply placed into custody.
 
Hilary concluded:
“Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.
The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?”
 
Doug here:
Well, any rumor about the boys could have been floating around London taverns anytime after Richard ascended the throne, but were simply regarded as unfounded gossip. As best e can tell, such rumors weren’t considered valid enough to mention in any letters, private or official at that point in time. After the attempt to free the boys, however, and especially after rebellion had broken out, any such rumors could easily take on a new life, finally reaching places outside London; places such as Croyland. The rumor seems to have spread after the rebellion broke out and it would have been then, or so I think, that any French involvement would have been.
The attempt was made, I believe, in July with idea being that it would be easier to get the boys out of the Tower when Richard wasn’t in London. Richard was crowned on 2 July and by the 23rd was, according to Williamson, in Reading before continuing on to Oxford. The actual attempt was made, I believe, during the last week of July and it may have been both the failure of the plot and the fact that Richard was on a Progress that kept those involved alive. During the time they were in custody, one would imagine there’d have been plenty of time for questioning, but that period of imprisonment also coincided with the rebellion so official attention may have been somewhat diverted – especially if the prisoners couldn’t provide much information regarding the rebellion itself. Once the rebellion was put down, however, it became a different matter and what might have been overlooked, at least to the extent of not requiring the death penalty, became a different matter – they’d been involved in an attempt aimed at not only freeing Edward and Richard, but also to return Edward to the throne. Something that could only have been accomplished over Richard’s dead body.
It’s the best I’ve got...
Doug
 
 
 
 

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


Hilary Jones
 

Doug, I agree about the dispersal of the rebellions. I hadn't thought about HT's proposed landing but I still find it very odd that the supposed leader of the rebellions should stay in Wales. How could he 'lead' from there? And the GC doesn't mention HT at all - interesting that, one would have thought it was very newsworthy given the current king in 1508/9.

I had another thought about Morton, Rotherham and King. What if we've been trying too hard to attribute plots or motives when in fact they were punished for doing exactly the opposite - they didn't do anything. And the 'anything' they didn't do was to warn Richard there was a plot afoot to murder him. Instead they were prepared to sit on the sidelines and see what happened - a bit of a 'Stanley'. 

Someone must have warned Richard. Now we know he had spies, but once such spies had reported their suspicions he would no doubt turn to see if anyone senior could endorse them. And one of those people would almost certainly have been Stanley, after all Stanley's wife had been visiting EW. This was an enormous opportunity for Stanley- a chance to get rid of his other local rival, Hastings, and we know he supported Richard through all this. Richard must have already been concerned about Rotherham's action of handing over the Great Seal to EW but his only punishment so far had been the loss of his office. It wouldn't take much investigation to find that he was moving in the same circles as Morton and King - I recall it's Mancini (much that I dislike him) who gives us the feasible snippet that they were meeting in each others' houses. On the other hand getting a group of clergy to confess that they had been 'in the know' would be difficult; they would know just how to invoke the secrecy of the confessional.

The answer would be to gather them up and disperse them under guard - just as Stallworth suggests. Unfortunately for Richard he'd underestimated their ingenuity, particularly that of Morton. The plotting started then.....      H


On Friday, 17 January 2020, 17:23:39 GMT, Doug Stamate <destama@...> wrote:


 
 
 
Hilary wrote:
Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.
Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?”
 
Doug here:
My understanding is that those rebels in Kent were supposed to join up and head for London, which is something Richard did his best to provide against (successfully, too). It’s also a good tactical move to try and force your opponent to divide his forces, with the presumption that such a move would increase one’s own chances. So we have risings in Kent and just to the west (I don’t know the names of those counties) which would almost certainly cause a concentration of Richard’s men to London to protect the capital. Then have risings in the West Country where Tudor was expected to land with his reinforcements from Brittany. IOW, Richard would be forced from the outset to divide his forces or risk either losing London or having the rebellion in the West develop into something really serious. So I think the reason Buckingham was still in Brecon was because people were mislead by the grants Buckingham had received from Richard; grants that, on the surface anyway, made Buckingham appear to control much of Wales as well as his own patrimony. Seemingly, no consideration was taken on whether Buckingham actually could raise troops from those grants (or even his own properties).
So, until Tudor had actually landed, Brecon was a good mustering site for all those expected troops. Once the troops had gathered, I imagine they would have moved towards Gloucester while Tudor did the same from whichever port he’d landed at.
 
Hilary wrote:
“Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere
'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'
Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.”
 
Doug here:
The plot against Richard and Buckingham, which cost Hastings’ his head had, I think, two parts. The second part followed on from the failure of the first part, which was to have the Council reject the Pre-Contract. I think Rotherham, Morton and King were well known as opponents of accepting the Pre-Contract and likely were also known to have lobbied other Council members to reject it. That would have been “Part One.” “Part Two” would have been the plot aimed at killing Richard and Buckingham, quite possibly originated by Dorset, who didn’t escape to Brittany until several months later. However, actual proof of the involvement of Rotherham, Morton and King in that second part may have been lacking, so they were simply placed into custody.
 
Hilary concluded:
“Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.
The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?”
 
Doug here:
Well, any rumor about the boys could have been floating around London taverns anytime after Richard ascended the throne, but were simply regarded as unfounded gossip. As best e can tell, such rumors weren’t considered valid enough to mention in any letters, private or official at that point in time. After the attempt to free the boys, however, and especially after rebellion had broken out, any such rumors could easily take on a new life, finally reaching places outside London; places such as Croyland. The rumor seems to have spread after the rebellion broke out and it would have been then, or so I think, that any French involvement would have been.
The attempt was made, I believe, in July with idea being that it would be easier to get the boys out of the Tower when Richard wasn’t in London. Richard was crowned on 2 July and by the 23rd was, according to Williamson, in Reading before continuing on to Oxford. The actual attempt was made, I believe, during the last week of July and it may have been both the failure of the plot and the fact that Richard was on a Progress that kept those involved alive. During the time they were in custody, one would imagine there’d have been plenty of time for questioning, but that period of imprisonment also coincided with the rebellion so official attention may have been somewhat diverted – especially if the prisoners couldn’t provide much information regarding the rebellion itself. Once the rebellion was put down, however, it became a different matter and what might have been overlooked, at least to the extent of not requiring the death penalty, became a different matter – they’d been involved in an attempt aimed at not only freeing Edward and Richard, but also to return Edward to the throne. Something that could only have been accomplished over Richard’s dead body.
It’s the best I’ve got...
Doug
 
 
 
 

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


nico11238@...
 

Hi,

I suspect that Morton, King and Rotherham may have engaged in suspicious activity with some relation to a plot to restore Edward V, but it wasn't possible to prove actual treason. Morton appears to be stirring in that direction and may have encouraged Oliver King to join, while Rotherham had always been loyal to EW.

It is a shame that there are so few contemporary sources covering this period as it is hard enough to keep stories consistent at the time; accounts passed down over generation would certainly contain errors. However, from what can be gathered, rumours about the deaths of the Princes do seem to have been popular with the merchant community in London, some of whom were foreign and spread the storied into Europe. Variously the Princes were starved, smothered, bled to death with leaches or still alive, but hidden away. Given Oliver King's links to the City of London, could he have been a source for their dispersal around England by passing them onto Morton. I can't decide whether they originated with Buckingham to smear Richard or Morton to call off the rebellion that was set to fail. Maybe they all had a vested interest in slandering him.

The French must have been keen to keep the rumours going. In an earlier post, you suggested that Buckingham may have been manipulated by Louis? As far as I know Buckingham didn't have much contact with France and was based largely in England, but there are gaps in his history so you can't rule it out. However since King had connections to France and French correspondence, he was a more likely candidate.

Nico


nico11238@...
 

I also think Stanley may have been the one who informed on plots. I also think that he would have been happy to throw MB under the proverbial bus, if it suited him. Mancini is annoying, as for everything he gets wrong, there are element that ring true, such as the meeting in people's houses. Instability breeds an agenda in ambitious people, and some were most likely involved in more than one alliance.

Henry Tudor soon emerges as a protagonist in the late summer of 1483, much of this has been credited to MB, but I don't think at this time she hoped for anything more than him having the best possible life as a nobleman in England. My feeling is that having been an exile for most of his life, the quest for the throne came from HT himself, mostly likely encouraged by Jasper with grand ideas about the Tudors being a ancient line of Welsh princes.

Nico


nico11238@...
 

I'm not sure if astrology is welcome the new forum, but I have recently been looking at Buckingham's astrological chart, and it does back up much of what we discussed about his character. I was going to put it in a new discussion, but I could see how to do it, so I put it in the files. I hope you find it interesting.
Nico


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Nico! I'm working backwards. From the lofty position of a co-moderator I have no objections whatsoever - I can't see Johanne would object and we've never had any protests :) :)  I'd also like to put it on our website, where we could make a feature. I think there are some other of yours in the Archive, if so I'll extract them?  I for one shall be very interested to have a look.

Thanks a million. H

On Saturday, 18 January 2020, 15:03:21 GMT, nico11238 via Groups.Io <nico11238@...> wrote:


I'm not sure if astrology is welcome the new forum, but I have recently been looking at Buckingham's astrological chart, and it does back up much of what we discussed about his character. I was going to put it in a new discussion, but I could see how to do it, so I put it in the files. I hope you find it interesting.
Nico


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Nico, yes I feel very sorry for anyone who has shelled out £700+ for Mancini! 

It's interesting, isn't it, that it was actually the Mayor, Shaa, and his brother who seemed to have supported Richard, which would indicate that the majority of the merchant classes just wanted a stable environment which would enable them to get on making money. But I suppose the Achilles heel of some merchants was religion, so if Oliver King, one of them, could convince them that they were supporting a dreadful act then one or two might get the jitters? A clever ploy.

I reckon the first person to be manipulated by the French could have been Morton. He'd spent several years in exile in France with MOA. He knew Louis (and probably Anne of Beaujeu) personally and of course Oliver was the expert in the French language. You see after the failure of the 'Hastings plot' Morton really had nowhere to go, he was never going to be promoted by Richard. Rotherham had also probably forfeited any chance of being Archbishop of Canterbury, though he would have been the natural heir and both of them probably thought (mistakenly) that Bourchier's death was imminent, so Morton could have 'moved up' to York.

I would have thought that Morton was clever enough, and had been around long enough, to realise that Buckingham was dangerously unpredictable - that he needed eradicating fast (sorry sounds like Dr Who should have said exterminating). So I can still buy the story that he was persuaded to rebel - and that probably HT made excuses about being unable to cross the Channel because the situation was just too dangerous; once Richard knew about the Rebellions they were bound to fail. And MB and her contacts had to be preserved with just a slap on the wrist.

BTW going on to your next post Stanley did awfully well in 1483 didn't he? He managed to get rid of his two great geographical rivals and this triumph was going to last for quite a few years until he was er...  Earl of Derby H



On Saturday, 18 January 2020, 14:48:58 GMT, nico11238 via Groups.Io <nico11238@...> wrote:

Hi,

I suspect that Morton, King and Rotherham may have engaged in suspicious activity with some relation to a plot to restore Edward V, but it wasn't possible to prove actual treason. Morton appears to be stirring in that direction and may have encouraged Oliver King to join, while Rotherham had always been loyal to EW.

It is a shame that there are so few contemporary sources covering this period as it is hard enough to keep stories consistent at the time; accounts passed down over generation would certainly contain errors. However, from what can be gathered, rumours about the deaths of the Princes do seem to have been popular with the merchant community in London, some of whom were foreign and spread the storied into Europe. Variously the Princes were starved, smothered, bled to death with leaches or still alive, but hidden away. Given Oliver King's links to the City of London, could he have been a source for their dispersal around England by passing them onto Morton. I can't decide whether they originated with Buckingham to smear Richard or Morton to call off the rebellion that was set to fail. Maybe they all had a vested interest in slandering him.

The French must have been keen to keep the rumours going. In an earlier post, you suggested that Buckingham may have been manipulated by Louis? As far as I know Buckingham didn't have much contact with France and was based largely in England, but there are gaps in his history so you can't rule it out. However since King had connections to France and French correspondence, he was a more likely candidate.

Nico


Hilary Jones
 

I do agree with all of this. I think we underestimate Jasper - he must have lived on a revenge grudge for years. I also found it interesting that he had difficulty collecting rents in Wales; one would have thought he might have been their hero.

Perhaps it all goes back to the stigma of the background of Owen Tudor? H 

On Saturday, 18 January 2020, 15:00:07 GMT, nico11238 via Groups.Io <nico11238@...> wrote:


I also think Stanley may have been the one who informed on plots. I also think that he would have been happy to throw MB under the proverbial bus, if it suited him. Mancini is annoying, as for everything he gets wrong, there are element that ring true, such as the meeting in people's houses. Instability breeds an agenda in ambitious people, and some were most likely involved in more than one alliance.

Henry Tudor soon emerges as a protagonist in the late summer of 1483, much of this has been credited to MB, but I don't think at this time she hoped for anything more than him having the best possible life as a nobleman in England. My feeling is that having been an exile for most of his life, the quest for the throne came from HT himself, mostly likely encouraged by Jasper with grand ideas about the Tudors being a ancient line of Welsh princes.

Nico


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Nico, I found your chart absolutely fascinating - thank you so much.

I notice that you mention that Buckingham was probably artistic or musical (I agree he would have made a good Byron, all drama and disaster) and I seem to recall that Richard too loved music - he and Anne had their own troupe of minstrels? That could have been another thing they had in common and we know Richard loved his books.

I think there was indeed some hero worship in there. Buckingham would remember the reception given to the Barnet victory party as they rode into London - three handsome young princes all in armour, the youngest of them (Richard) not too different in age from himself, a wounded hero. But, to go by your reading, it wasn't the fact they'd fought in battle that would have impressed him, it was the reception they were getting from the crowd. How he would have loved to get a reception like that!

Then at ROY's wedding he and Richard played the star roles and go to know each other better. As you say, at something like that they would have made easy conversation, he would have thought he'd forged a special bond with Richard (rather than Edward who'd virtually ignored him all his life). And if he was indeed sociopathic (and it does seem very likely he was) he was able to offer the friendship and comfort that Richard needed at a particular point in his life after the death of Edward and when his own life was under threat. 

I find it interesting that you say Richard was very straight talking. That's not surprising because that  would have been nurtured by the straight talking men of Yorkshire who'd surrounded him for most of his life. I doubt they'd have shirked from telling him the truth and he would have grown to respect them for it. So if, as you say, he'd done what today we'd all an 'appraisal' on Buckingham and it called for improvement, then I can well see how Buckingham's dreams were smashed. He wasn't the special person to his hero that he'd believed he was, so now he was left to flounder. Seeing it in this framework it begins to make a lot more sense. 

H (who until your charts never realised how much impact the time of birth had on interpretation - and is also a Virgo!)



On Saturday, 18 January 2020, 15:03:21 GMT, nico11238 via Groups.Io <nico11238@...> wrote:


I'm not sure if astrology is welcome the new forum, but I have recently been looking at Buckingham's astrological chart, and it does back up much of what we discussed about his character. I was going to put it in a new discussion, but I could see how to do it, so I put it in the files. I hope you find it interesting.
Nico


Doug Stamate
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Hilary,
If the rebellion was to free Edward and his brother, which is what I believe it was, then taking London would have been the main aim. If that was the case, then those rebels from Kent and adjoining areas were the main force and the purpose of any forces in the West Country and Wales would have been to force Richard to divide his forces or risk losing both London, and the boys, and then be faced with being trapped between the two rebel forces, one coming at him from London and the other facing him in, likely, in Gloucestershire.
Wasn’t Dorset still at Westminster? My understanding is that he didn’t flee England until after the rebellion, so perhaps he was supposed to be the leader? If Dorset did occupy that position, then getting Buckingham “on side” would come into the category of simply expanding the rebels’ base. Possibly the failure of the GC to mention HT was because the October Rebellion failed and any participation in a failed rebellion wouldn’t have looked good for the “savior” of England?
I agree that Morton, Rotherham and King likely had knowledge that something was in the works and by failing to report whatever they’d heard (however little) was what resulted in their being taken into custody after the plot was fully exposed. As you say, what they knew could have been covered by claims of the Confessional if they were determined to keep their knowledge hidden, but I rather wonder if what got them in trouble wasn’t something more along the lines of Hastings having made various comments/threats in the trio’s presence? Their defense in that case would have been that they simply thought Hastings was blowing off steam and they certainly hadn’t imagined he’d participate in anything more sinister!
Another possibility for major informant would be Buckingham. If it was indeed Buckingham, then the timing of the loan of 200 pounds might signify more than Buckingham “hiring” Hastings’ men after the latter’s execution. There’d have been rewards for information as well...
Doug
 
Hilary wrote:
“Doug, I agree about the dispersal of the rebellions. I hadn't thought about HT's proposed landing but I still find it very odd that the supposed leader of the rebellions should stay in Wales. How could he 'lead' from there? And the GC doesn't mention HT at all - interesting that, one would have thought it was very newsworthy given the current king in 1508/9.
I had another thought about Morton, Rotherham and King. What if we've been trying too hard to attribute plots or motives when in fact they were punished for doing exactly the opposite - they didn't do anything. And the 'anything' they didn't do was to warn Richard there was a plot afoot to murder him. Instead they were prepared to sit on the sidelines and see what happened - a bit of a 'Stanley'.
Someone must have warned Richard. Now we know he had spies, but once such spies had reported their suspicions he would no doubt turn to see if anyone senior could endorse them. And one of those people would almost certainly have been Stanley, after all Stanley's wife had been visiting EW. This was an enormous opportunity for Stanley- a chance to get rid of his other local rival, Hastings, and we know he supported Richard through all this. Richard must have already been concerned about Rotherham's action of handing over the Great Seal to EW but his only punishment so far had been the loss of his office. It wouldn't take much investigation to find that he was moving in the same circles as Morton and King - I recall it's Mancini (much that I dislike him) who gives us the feasible snippet that they were meeting in each others' houses. On the other hand getting a group of clergy to confess that they had been 'in the know' would be difficult; they would know just how to invoke the secrecy of the confessional.
The answer would be to gather them up and disperse them under guard - just as Stallworth suggests. Unfortunately for Richard he'd underestimated their ingenuity, particularly that of Morton. The plotting started then.....”
 
 
 
 

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


nico11238@...
 

Hi Hilary,

I'm so pleased that you liked the Buckingham chart. Yes, I can also see him wishing that the post Barnet victory adulation was all about him. I had forgotten that he and Richard played starring roles at the Richard and Anne Mowbray wedding.  He would have been in his element in a situation like that,and I would imagine that he was a superb host who threw fantastic parties where he was charm personified - a quality that makes me wonder if the the situation with Morton was something of a two way street where Buckingham charmed Morton telling him a sob story about Richard letting him down. Morton then took the opportunity to invite him into the Woodville plot, without realizing that Buckingham was only interested in pursuing his own claim to the throne. That left two separate plots that Morton knew would be unsuccessful and real mess.

You have a good eye for detail, so it doesn't surprise me that you are a Virgo. The birth time is very important in astrology, as the sign on the ascendant is an indication of appearance and attitudes to life and the way the planets are distributed shows how the energy is distributed, and in what way the person will be affected by transiting planets. Astrology isn't just about 12 signs; people born on the same day can be radically different.

I could upload the chart on Edward IV, but I would like to review. It was very long, so I may shorten it and also review the precontract section, which I now believe took place in London in 1460. Over the summer, I had a look at the charts of Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, Anne, Isabel Clarence and Richard, but I never got around to typing up the notes (which I still have somewhere). Obviously, astrology isn't the focus of the forum, but it does give ideas where there are gaps with what we know.

Nico


Marie Walsh <walshmarie414@...>
 

Hi all,

Sorry I keep popping up breathlessly and popping down gain – I really don’t have the time for the forum these days but am reluctant to let it drop completely.

Have quickly read through the posts on Buckingham’s role in 1483 and just wanted to say a few things.

  1. The accuracy of the Great Chronicle. I always try to look at the development of any tale through the chronicles and histories, because you can always see a development through time, and also particular political expediencies at particular periods.  I haven’t had time to do so with this, but something has clearly gone wrong with the chronology, with the Princes being dead, or believed dead, before Richard took the throne. Quite evidently they were still known to be alive in the Tower in late July when the plot to free them was foiled. Crowland (c.1485) places the rumours much later, but Rous (1490) has the boys killed before Richard becomes king. This notion (that Richard killed them in order to pave his way to the throne rather than make himself more secure as king) seems to have originated in France. It’s implicit in Mancini’s muddled chronology, and was openly asserted (very possibly on the basis of Mancini’s text) by the Chancellor of France at the Estates-General on 5 January 1484. I agree that there’s absolutely no indication that anybody believed this to be so in London or anywhere else in England in June 1483. It’s a tidier claim for Richard’s enemies, of course. It’s more difficult to argue that he needed to kill them to stay on the throne if he hadn’t needed to kill them to get on the throne.
  2. Morton and Oliver King. King was only ever accused of involvement in the Hastings plot, and at that time Edward V was still king. We unfortunately do not know when the precontract claim as first disclosed, but on 9 June Stallworth wrote to Sir W Stonor from Westminster to report that coronation preparations were full-steam-ahead. On the 10th Richard wrote that letter to York begging for armed men to protect him and Buckingham against the Queen and her affinity, and on the 11th to Lord Neville. Hastings was arrested and executed on Friday 13th. On Tuesday 16th the Queen handed over her younger son, and on the same day the first steps were taken to postpone – not cancel - the coronation (which was due to take place that coming Sunday) and accompanying parliament. Ralph Shaa’s speech publicly announcing the precontract was on the 22nd. Morton’s motives at Brecon are hard to fathom. He ditched Buckingham as soon as he’d been freed, and didn’t join the other rebels at Tudor’s court. He was clearly very hostile to Richard, but I get the impression his loyalties lay more with Edward IV’s issue rather than Tudor.  Money? Not in Morton’s case – he had plenty as a bishop. Sometimes people just are political zealots and will risk a lot for a cause they believe in.
  3. I would question whether Morton was in a position to be spreading rumours of the Princes’ deaths from imprisonment in Wales.
  4. Crowland’s chronology is that he talks about Richard’s coronation and disappearance North on progress, and tells us the Princes remained in the Tower, that there was a plot, foiled, to spirit their sisters abroad. Then; “When at last the people around the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire . . . began considering vengeance, public proclamation having been made that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living at Brecknock in Wales, being repentant of what had been done, would be captain-in-chief in this affair, a rumour arose that Kong Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. For this reason, all those who had begun this agitation. . . remembered Henry, earl of Richmond. . . .”
  5. I agree that Buckingham’s plan would have been to either force Richard to divide his forces or trap him in a pincer movement. He wasn’t planning to stay at Brecon – he moved out of Brecon eastwards, and no doubt would have gathered men from his English estates as he went forward. Three things went wrong. First, people did not flock to his banners. Second, he unfurled those banners late in relation to some of the other rebel groups, particularly given how far he had to travel, and thirdly the rains caused flooding which blocked his army’s passage over the Severn.
  6. The details of the July plot come from Stow, not from the January Act of Attainder, so there is no reason to think the executions were delayed. Stow seems to have been working from an indictment that has since been lost.
  7. Richard’s coronation was on 6 July. Buckingham appears to have been still in London on July 17, as John Howard’s accounts record a visit he made that day to Buckingham’s London home.
  8. Did Buckingham have contact with King Louis? Well, shortly before 18 August Richard received a letter from King Louis which Louis had sent to him via Buckingham Herald. This, as I understand it (but maybe I’m wrong), would have been the Duke of Buckingham’s personal herald.

Marie

 

From: RichardIIIForum@groups.io <RichardIIIForum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Doug Stamate
Sent: 17 January 2020 17:24
To: RichardIIIForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [RichardIIIForum] Rumours, Buckingham, Morton and the October Rebellions

 

 

 

 

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.

Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?”

 

Doug here:

My understanding is that those rebels in Kent were supposed to join up and head for London, which is something Richard did his best to provide against (successfully, too). It’s also a good tactical move to try and force your opponent to divide his forces, with the presumption that such a move would increase one’s own chances. So we have risings in Kent and just to the west (I don’t know the names of those counties) which would almost certainly cause a concentration of Richard’s men to London to protect the capital. Then have risings in the West Country where Tudor was expected to land with his reinforcements from Brittany. IOW, Richard would be forced from the outset to divide his forces or risk either losing London or having the rebellion in the West develop into something really serious. So I think the reason Buckingham was still in Brecon was because people were mislead by the grants Buckingham had received from Richard; grants that, on the surface anyway, made Buckingham appear to control much of Wales as well as his own patrimony. Seemingly, no consideration was taken on whether Buckingham actually could raise troops from those grants (or even his own properties).

So, until Tudor had actually landed, Brecon was a good mustering site for all those expected troops. Once the troops had gathered, I imagine they would have moved towards Gloucester while Tudor did the same from whichever port he’d landed at.

 

Hilary wrote:

“Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere

'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'

Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.”

 

Doug here:

The plot against Richard and Buckingham, which cost Hastings’ his head had, I think, two parts. The second part followed on from the failure of the first part, which was to have the Council reject the Pre-Contract. I think Rotherham, Morton and King were well known as opponents of accepting the Pre-Contract and likely were also known to have lobbied other Council members to reject it. That would have been “Part One.” “Part Two” would have been the plot aimed at killing Richard and Buckingham, quite possibly originated by Dorset, who didn’t escape to Brittany until several months later. However, actual proof of the involvement of Rotherham, Morton and King in that second part may have been lacking, so they were simply placed into custody.

 

Hilary concluded:

“Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.

The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?”

 

Doug here:

Well, any rumor about the boys could have been floating around London taverns anytime after Richard ascended the throne, but were simply regarded as unfounded gossip. As best e can tell, such rumors weren’t considered valid enough to mention in any letters, private or official at that point in time. After the attempt to free the boys, however, and especially after rebellion had broken out, any such rumors could easily take on a new life, finally reaching places outside London; places such as Croyland. The rumor seems to have spread after the rebellion broke out and it would have been then, or so I think, that any French involvement would have been.

The attempt was made, I believe, in July with idea being that it would be easier to get the boys out of the Tower when Richard wasn’t in London. Richard was crowned on 2 July and by the 23rd was, according to Williamson, in Reading before continuing on to Oxford. The actual attempt was made, I believe, during the last week of July and it may have been both the failure of the plot and the fact that Richard was on a Progress that kept those involved alive. During the time they were in custody, one would imagine there’d have been plenty of time for questioning, but that period of imprisonment also coincided with the rebellion so official attention may have been somewhat diverted – especially if the prisoners couldn’t provide much information regarding the rebellion itself. Once the rebellion was put down, however, it became a different matter and what might have been overlooked, at least to the extent of not requiring the death penalty, became a different matter – they’d been involved in an attempt aimed at not only freeing Edward and Richard, but also to return Edward to the throne. Something that could only have been accomplished over Richard’s dead body.

It’s the best I’ve got...

Doug

 

 

 

 


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


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Nico, I shared a birthday with my mother-in-law - there were two no more different people, we were obviously born at different times of day!!

I think your suggestion about Morton and Buckingham is quite feasible. Morton had known a lot of people in his time, it wouldn't take him long to realise that Buckingham had no substance and was a substantial risk.

If it's all right with you I'll also put your chart on our website and say it's part of a series - so you can update them as and when. I certainly don't dismiss anything like this, it's a serious science that's been practised for centuries. I'm open to anything that can help us in our quest. I still find it uncanny how accurate was the description in Collins of Richard's death - far more accurate than some of our so-called chroniclers.   

Thanks again!   H

  

On Sunday, 19 January 2020, 21:05:14 GMT, nico11238 via Groups.Io <nico11238@...> wrote:


Hi Hilary,

I'm so pleased that you liked the Buckingham chart. Yes, I can also see him wishing that the post Barnet victory adulation was all about him. I had forgotten that he and Richard played starring roles at the Richard and Anne Mowbray wedding.  He would have been in his element in a situation like that,and I would imagine that he was a superb host who threw fantastic parties where he was charm personified - a quality that makes me wonder if the the situation with Morton was something of a two way street where Buckingham charmed Morton telling him a sob story about Richard letting him down. Morton then took the opportunity to invite him into the Woodville plot, without realizing that Buckingham was only interested in pursuing his own claim to the throne. That left two separate plots that Morton knew would be unsuccessful and real mess.

You have a good eye for detail, so it doesn't surprise me that you are a Virgo. The birth time is very important in astrology, as the sign on the ascendant is an indication of appearance and attitudes to life and the way the planets are distributed shows how the energy is distributed, and in what way the person will be affected by transiting planets. Astrology isn't just about 12 signs; people born on the same day can be radically different.

I could upload the chart on Edward IV, but I would like to review. It was very long, so I may shorten it and also review the precontract section, which I now believe took place in London in 1460. Over the summer, I had a look at the charts of Warwick, Anne Beauchamp, Anne, Isabel Clarence and Richard, but I never got around to typing up the notes (which I still have somewhere). Obviously, astrology isn't the focus of the forum, but it does give ideas where there are gaps with what we know.

Nico


Hilary Jones
 

Hi Marie/ Doug et al

(Marie pop in whenever you like, we value your contribution very much)

For speed I'll match my comments to yours Marie.

The accuracy of the Great Chronicle (1)
I'm actually beginning to think parts of it are more accurate than I once thought. I'll explain why when we come to Buckingham. And of course one has to bear in mind that at the time it was written certain things were risky to say. To me both Crowland and particularly Rous are not to be trusted, the former because of its date (1486) and association with MB through Cambridge University, the latter because Rous (no lover of HT) was clearly on a mission to get the Beauchamp lands restored and one way was to trash the reputation of the man he'd once praised. I agree with you though Marie that we can use them to get a chronological history of when the rumours supposedly began. The English had a history of using rumour to destabilise the French during the Hundred Years War; I reckon Mancini was suggesting playing them at their own game. The work/letter is dated December 1483, so could be based on updated news since he left England in July? Sorry I just don't trust Mancini or his source/sources of information.`
Morton and Oliver King (2)
I broadly agree. I think Stallworth has to be our purest source for the information on the death of Hastings and the arrest of the bishops - and indeed Forster. He doesn't actually connect the bishops (and King) or Forster with the death of Hastings, just that they all happened together, so one concludes it's likely. His indication that they will soon be transferred to one of Richard's properties implies that their crime was not as great as Hastings, which could indicate that they knew what was going on but didn't act to prevent it.
Morton spreading rumours? (3)
I agree with you Marie, probably not his style
Crowland's Chronology & Buckingham's Actions (4 & 5)
Is very like that of the Great Chronicle - in fact did Fabyan get his material from the same source, he was writing years' after Crowland? As I said earlier, he was a merchant, he'd be good at London stuff, not necessarily that elsewhere.
I took another look at the Parliament Roll and it very clearly states that each bunch of rebels was incited by Buckingham - as it gives each area of rebellion it cites him, not Morton, or Nandyke or Rushe who were also named as conspiring with him at Brecon. It also says that it was Buckingham (not Morton et al) who was in correspondence with HT, who encouraged him to raise a fleet of foreigners and who set out to meet the arrival of that fleet on 18 October. Does the PR Roll do this, I wonder, to go some way to placating EW and the remaining Woodvilles - I recall she came out of Sanctuary round about this time? The composition of the majority of rebels were Woodville relations and adherents including the very few who were executed. It does raise the question whether Buckingham would have supported all this if he'd known the princes were dead. The PR do tell us that he gathered a number of men at Brecon and rioted there
The July Plot (6)
Yes Marie is right. According to Baldwin this is a combination of accounts of John Stow (16th century) and the French Chronicler Thomas Basin (ah French rumours again) which Horrox combines with an order given by Richard date 29 July instructing the Chancellor to appoint a Commission to try unnamed men for an 'enterprise'. For once I agree with Hicks who queries why the GC did not report the supposed rescue attempt or the executions nor was there any mention in the legal records of a trial. The names of the four men are not amongst those attainted in 1484 (they might not have had property of course). So true or false? 
Possible Contact Between Buckingham and King Louis (8)
Well he seems to have been in contact with HT so perhaps Morton gave him a reference? Or HT had approached Louis about the enterprise?

Hope my contribution helps. H



On Sunday, 19 January 2020, 23:35:41 GMT, Marie Walsh <walshmarie414@...> wrote:


Hi all,

Sorry I keep popping up breathlessly and popping down gain – I really don’t have the time for the forum these days but am reluctant to let it drop completely.

Have quickly read through the posts on Buckingham’s role in 1483 and just wanted to say a few things.

  1. The accuracy of the Great Chronicle. I always try to look at the development of any tale through the chronicles and histories, because you can always see a development through time, and also particular political expediencies at particular periods.  I haven’t had time to do so with this, but something has clearly gone wrong with the chronology, with the Princes being dead, or believed dead, before Richard took the throne. Quite evidently they were still known to be alive in the Tower in late July when the plot to free them was foiled. Crowland (c.1485) places the rumours much later, but Rous (1490) has the boys killed before Richard becomes king. This notion (that Richard killed them in order to pave his way to the throne rather than make himself more secure as king) seems to have originated in France. It’s implicit in Mancini’s muddled chronology, and was openly asserted (very possibly on the basis of Mancini’s text) by the Chancellor of France at the Estates-General on 5 January 1484. I agree that there’s absolutely no indication that anybody believed this to be so in London or anywhere else in England in June 1483. It’s a tidier claim for Richard’s enemies, of course. It’s more difficult to argue that he needed to kill them to stay on the throne if he hadn’t needed to kill them to get on the throne.
  2. Morton and Oliver King. King was only ever accused of involvement in the Hastings plot, and at that time Edward V was still king. We unfortunately do not know when the precontract claim as first disclosed, but on 9 June Stallworth wrote to Sir W Stonor from Westminster to report that coronation preparations were full-steam-ahead. On the 10th Richard wrote that letter to York begging for armed men to protect him and Buckingham against the Queen and her affinity, and on the 11th to Lord Neville. Hastings was arrested and executed on Friday 13th. On Tuesday 16th the Queen handed over her younger son, and on the same day the first steps were taken to postpone – not cancel - the coronation (which was due to take place that coming Sunday) and accompanying parliament. Ralph Shaa’s speech publicly announcing the precontract was on the 22nd. Morton’s motives at Brecon are hard to fathom. He ditched Buckingham as soon as he’d been freed, and didn’t join the other rebels at Tudor’s court. He was clearly very hostile to Richard, but I get the impression his loyalties lay more with Edward IV’s issue rather than Tudor.  Money? Not in Morton’s case – he had plenty as a bishop. Sometimes people just are political zealots and will risk a lot for a cause they believe in.
  3. I would question whether Morton was in a position to be spreading rumours of the Princes’ deaths from imprisonment in Wales.
  4. Crowland’s chronology is that he talks about Richard’s coronation and disappearance North on progress, and tells us the Princes remained in the Tower, that there was a plot, foiled, to spirit their sisters abroad. Then; “When at last the people around the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire . . . began considering vengeance, public proclamation having been made that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living at Brecknock in Wales, being repentant of what had been done, would be captain-in-chief in this affair, a rumour arose that Kong Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. For this reason, all those who had begun this agitation. . . remembered Henry, earl of Richmond. . . .”
  5. I agree that Buckingham’s plan would have been to either force Richard to divide his forces or trap him in a pincer movement. He wasn’t planning to stay at Brecon – he moved out of Brecon eastwards, and no doubt would have gathered men from his English estates as he went forward. Three things went wrong. First, people did not flock to his banners. Second, he unfurled those banners late in relation to some of the other rebel groups, particularly given how far he had to travel, and thirdly the rains caused flooding which blocked his army’s passage over the Severn.
  6. The details of the July plot come from Stow, not from the January Act of Attainder, so there is no reason to think the executions were delayed. Stow seems to have been working from an indictment that has since been lost.
  7. Richard’s coronation was on 6 July. Buckingham appears to have been still in London on July 17, as John Howard’s accounts record a visit he made that day to Buckingham’s London home.
  8. Did Buckingham have contact with King Louis? Well, shortly before 18 August Richard received a letter from King Louis which Louis had sent to him via Buckingham Herald. This, as I understand it (but maybe I’m wrong), would have been the Duke of Buckingham’s personal herald.

Marie

 

From: RichardIIIForum@groups.io <RichardIIIForum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Doug Stamate
Sent: 17 January 2020 17:24
To: RichardIIIForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [RichardIIIForum] Rumours, Buckingham, Morton and the October Rebellions

 

 

 

 

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.

Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?”

 

Doug here:

My understanding is that those rebels in Kent were supposed to join up and head for London, which is something Richard did his best to provide against (successfully, too). It’s also a good tactical move to try and force your opponent to divide his forces, with the presumption that such a move would increase one’s own chances. So we have risings in Kent and just to the west (I don’t know the names of those counties) which would almost certainly cause a concentration of Richard’s men to London to protect the capital. Then have risings in the West Country where Tudor was expected to land with his reinforcements from Brittany. IOW, Richard would be forced from the outset to divide his forces or risk either losing London or having the rebellion in the West develop into something really serious. So I think the reason Buckingham was still in Brecon was because people were mislead by the grants Buckingham had received from Richard; grants that, on the surface anyway, made Buckingham appear to control much of Wales as well as his own patrimony. Seemingly, no consideration was taken on whether Buckingham actually could raise troops from those grants (or even his own properties).

So, until Tudor had actually landed, Brecon was a good mustering site for all those expected troops. Once the troops had gathered, I imagine they would have moved towards Gloucester while Tudor did the same from whichever port he’d landed at.

 

Hilary wrote:

“Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere

'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'

Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.”

 

Doug here:

The plot against Richard and Buckingham, which cost Hastings’ his head had, I think, two parts. The second part followed on from the failure of the first part, which was to have the Council reject the Pre-Contract. I think Rotherham, Morton and King were well known as opponents of accepting the Pre-Contract and likely were also known to have lobbied other Council members to reject it. That would have been “Part One.” “Part Two” would have been the plot aimed at killing Richard and Buckingham, quite possibly originated by Dorset, who didn’t escape to Brittany until several months later. However, actual proof of the involvement of Rotherham, Morton and King in that second part may have been lacking, so they were simply placed into custody.

 

Hilary concluded:

“Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.

The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?”

 

Doug here:

Well, any rumor about the boys could have been floating around London taverns anytime after Richard ascended the throne, but were simply regarded as unfounded gossip. As best e can tell, such rumors weren’t considered valid enough to mention in any letters, private or official at that point in time. After the attempt to free the boys, however, and especially after rebellion had broken out, any such rumors could easily take on a new life, finally reaching places outside London; places such as Croyland. The rumor seems to have spread after the rebellion broke out and it would have been then, or so I think, that any French involvement would have been.

The attempt was made, I believe, in July with idea being that it would be easier to get the boys out of the Tower when Richard wasn’t in London. Richard was crowned on 2 July and by the 23rd was, according to Williamson, in Reading before continuing on to Oxford. The actual attempt was made, I believe, during the last week of July and it may have been both the failure of the plot and the fact that Richard was on a Progress that kept those involved alive. During the time they were in custody, one would imagine there’d have been plenty of time for questioning, but that period of imprisonment also coincided with the rebellion so official attention may have been somewhat diverted – especially if the prisoners couldn’t provide much information regarding the rebellion itself. Once the rebellion was put down, however, it became a different matter and what might have been overlooked, at least to the extent of not requiring the death penalty, became a different matter – they’d been involved in an attempt aimed at not only freeing Edward and Richard, but also to return Edward to the throne. Something that could only have been accomplished over Richard’s dead body.

It’s the best I’ve got...

Doug

 

 

 

 


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


Doug Stamate
 

 
 
 
Marie,
Just wanted to thank you for a concise and thorough summation of what the records (such as they are) contain! It does appear to me that much of what did get entered into chronicles, and even letters, may have been based on “what everyone knows,” aka gossip. How accurate that gossip represented what did happen is, naturally, the question.
Regarding Morton spreading the rumors; I was thinking along the lines of the possibility it was the bishop spreading the rumors, but after he’d left Brecon. My apologies if I wasn’t clear!
Finally, I’m sorry to hear you’re not able to be a constant contributor, but I do want you to know I read everything you post, always find your posts, even those that shoot down one of my “theories” (although “imaginings might be a better term?Winking smile), and am already looking forward to your next post!
Doug
 
Marie wrote:
“Hi all,

Sorry I keep popping up breathlessly and popping down gain – I really don’t have the time for the forum these days but am reluctant to let it drop completely.

Have quickly read through the posts on Buckingham’s role in 1483 and just wanted to say a few things.

  1. The accuracy of the Great Chronicle. I always try to look at the development of any tale through the chronicles and histories, because you can always see a development through time, and also particular political expediencies at particular periods.  I haven’t had time to do so with this, but something has clearly gone wrong with the chronology, with the Princes being dead, or believed dead, before Richard took the throne. Quite evidently they were still known to be alive in the Tower in late July when the plot to free them was foiled. Crowland (c.1485) places the rumours much later, but Rous (1490) has the boys killed before Richard becomes king. This notion (that Richard killed them in order to pave his way to the throne rather than make himself more secure as king) seems to have originated in France. It’s implicit in Mancini’s muddled chronology, and was openly asserted (very possibly on the basis of Mancini’s text) by the Chancellor of France at the Estates-General on 5 January 1484. I agree that there’s absolutely no indication that anybody believed this to be so in London or anywhere else in England in June 1483. It’s a tidier claim for Richard’s enemies, of course. It’s more difficult to argue that he needed to kill them to stay on the throne if he hadn’t needed to kill them to get on the throne.
  2. Morton and Oliver King. King was only ever accused of involvement in the Hastings plot, and at that time Edward V was still king. We unfortunately do not know when the precontract claim as first disclosed, but on 9 June Stallworth wrote to Sir W Stonor from Westminster to report that coronation preparations were full-steam-ahead. On the 10th Richard wrote that letter to York begging for armed men to protect him and Buckingham against the Queen and her affinity, and on the 11th to Lord Neville. Hastings was arrested and executed on Friday 13th. On Tuesday 16th the Queen handed over her younger son, and on the same day the first steps were taken to postpone – not cancel - the coronation (which was due to take place that coming Sunday) and accompanying parliament. Ralph Shaa’s speech publicly announcing the precontract was on the 22nd. Morton’s motives at Brecon are hard to fathom. He ditched Buckingham as soon as he’d been freed, and didn’t join the other rebels at Tudor’s court. He was clearly very hostile to Richard, but I get the impression his loyalties lay more with Edward IV’s issue rather than Tudor.  Money? Not in Morton’s case – he had plenty as a bishop. Sometimes people just are political zealots and will risk a lot for a cause they believe in.
  3. I would question whether Morton was in a position to be spreading rumours of the Princes’ deaths from imprisonment in Wales.
  4. Crowland’s chronology is that he talks about Richard’s coronation and disappearance North on progress, and tells us the Princes remained in the Tower, that there was a plot, foiled, to spirit their sisters abroad. Then; “When at last the people around the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire . . . began considering vengeance, public proclamation having been made that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living at Brecknock in Wales, being repentant of what had been done, would be captain-in-chief in this affair, a rumour arose that Kong Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. For this reason, all those who had begun this agitation. . . remembered Henry, earl of Richmond. . . .”
  5. I agree that Buckingham’s plan would have been to either force Richard to divide his forces or trap him in a pincer movement. He wasn’t planning to stay at Brecon – he moved out of Brecon eastwards, and no doubt would have gathered men from his English estates as he went forward. Three things went wrong. First, people did not flock to his banners. Second, he unfurled those banners late in relation to some of the other rebel groups, particularly given how far he had to travel, and thirdly the rains caused flooding which blocked his army’s passage over the Severn.
  6. The details of the July plot come from Stow, not from the January Act of Attainder, so there is no reason to think the executions were delayed. Stow seems to have been working from an indictment that has since been lost.
  7. Richard’s coronation was on 6 July. Buckingham appears to have been still in London on July 17, as John Howard’s accounts record a visit he made that day to Buckingham’s London home.
  8. Did Buckingham have contact with King Louis? Well, shortly before 18 August Richard received a letter from King Louis which Louis had sent to him via Buckingham Herald. This, as I understand it (but maybe I’m wrong), would have been the Duke of Buckingham’s personal herald.”
 
 
 
 

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


Marie Walsh <walshmarie414@...>
 

Hil Hilary,

Just some further thoughts on these points:

 

The accuracy of the Great Chronicle (1)

Hilary: I'm actually beginning to think parts of it are more accurate than I once thought. I'll explain why when we come to Buckingham. And of course one has to bear in mind that at the time it was written certain things were risky to say. To me both Crowland and particularly Rous are not to be trusted, the former because of its date (1486) and association with MB through Cambridge University, the latter because Rous (no lover of HT) was clearly on a mission to get the Beauchamp lands restored and one way was to trash the reputation of the man he'd once praised. I agree with you though Marie that we can use them to get a chronological history of when the rumours supposedly began. The English had a history of using rumour to destabilise the French during the Hundred Years War; I reckon Mancini was suggesting playing them at their own game. The work/letter is dated December 1483, so could be based on updated news since he left England in July? Sorry I just don't trust Mancini or his source/sources of information.`

Marie: I agree there are some tantalisingly accurate-looking nuggets in the GC. But there are also things that are clearly inaccurate and the result of the development of verbal and/or wriitten traditions. In the case of the disappearance of the Princes, we can be pretty confident that the claim that they were gradually withdrawn from view, and vanished during the 10 days between York’s arrival at the Tower and Richard accepting the throne can be safely discounted. Only the vagueness of distant memory, or in Mancini’s case, chronological muddle, makes such a scenario even possible, never mind that the evidence is strong that they were still known to be in the Tower late in July.

The section of Crowland dealing with Richard’s reign was written no later than 1485. It has been conclusively shown that the whole thing was not written in 10 days in April 1486 (this marginal comment refers to the Bringhurst transfer) and that the writer of the final section – possibly writing in April 1486 - did not know the identity of the author of the preceding section. The author of the account of Richard’s reign wraps up his account after Bosworth, saying he does not believe in writing about the living. This is then followed by a brief eulogy of Henry VII and his marriage to Elizabeth, possibly by the same author having second thoughts, or possibly by someone else. Then we have the third author (looking awfully likely to be Russell) giving a more critical account of Henry’s parliament and taking us up to April 1486 with an account of Henry’s narrow escape in York. So we can be sure that the account of the protectorate period was written no later than September of 1485.

Morton was not yet closely associated with Cambridge University. He himself had, of course, studied at Oxford, and it was indeed Oxford University that wrote to Richard asking for clemency for him. Nor was MB, so far as I know – not as early as this.

I am well acquainted with Rous, having translated for myself large chunks of his work. Helping the Countess, and her grandson, were indeed  probably two of his motives. Another was getting a royal pension to retire on – he is quite explicit about this. His most laudable motive was to get the King to put forward legislation to deal with the evil of enclosures, which is something he felt passionate about and had been campaigning on for decades. I suspect, from his rather lumpy account of Richard’s reign, that he may have begun writing it for Richard and then revised it after Bosworth. He was largely reliant  on information from visitors for things that happened a long way from Warwick, and was gullible (he believed there had once been giants, and also believed Henry VI’s body was on display, uncorrupt, at his reburial). He is also brilliant on local matters, including Richard’s visit to Warwick on his progress.

I wouldn’t demonize Mancini. It’s clear from his introduction that he was put on the spot, and did not volunteer to write that account but was forced to by Cato. The story he recounts in his introduction is that, when he returned to Cato, he chatted with him and others about the events that had occurred in England, and then Cato instructs him to make a written account which he, Cato, will then send as a gift to his old mentor in Italy, the Prince of Tarranto. Mancini protests – he doesn’t have the level of knowledge of these affairs; he is unclear about the names of some of the main protagonists; his grasp of the chronology is hazy, and he had no inside information so is ignorant of the motives of those involved. But Cato insists. By the time Mancini finally complete his work Cato is angry at the delay. We also have to take into account exactly what it was that Cato wanted Mancini to elucidate. Was it Cato who asked what had happened to the boys? If not, why on earth did Mancini even feel the need to deal with such a difficult subject? Did Cato have a particular answer he wanted to hear, and was Mancini doing his best to give him an acceptable answer without telling direct lies?

So, yes indeed, Mancini is unreliable but he was not the mastermind of this adverse propaganda, but rather Archbishop Cato’s instrument.

And, given Mancini’s dilemma, it is indeed likely that much of what he wrote was gleaned post hoc, in France, during that period of delay. And, if he was to give an account of the Princes’ disappearance that would satisfy Cato, then to pass it off as a personal account  he would have to push this narrative into the period before Richard’s coronation because he himself had left England just afterwards.

I have a pet theory that Cato’s interest in Edward V’s fate was astrological – Cato was a very famous political-predictive astrologer.

 

 

Morton and Oliver King (2)

I broadly agree. I think Stallworth has to be our purest source for the information on the death of Hastings and the arrest of the bishops - and indeed Forster. He doesn't actually connect the bishops (and King) or Forster with the death of Hastings, just that they all happened together, so one concludes it's likely. His indication that they will soon be transferred to one of Richard's properties implies that their crime was not as great as Hastings, which could indicate that they knew what was going on but didn't act to prevent it.

I know Langstrother’s case has been cited here as evidence that clergy would have been tried and executed if guilty of treason, but weren’t the Knights of St. John different? Not necessarily priests, just celibate?

Benefit of clergy forbade both secular trial and execution for priests, and the Yorkists could not afford a rerun of the adverse publicity caused to Henry IV by the execution of Archbishop Scrope (a martyr to the Yorkists). There is no doubt that Archbishop Neville was deemed guilty of treason, but he was only held in custody. So I don’t think we can tell anything about the roles of Morton, Rotherham and King from the fact that they were not tried and executed. Even keeping them in secular gaols (as EIV also had with Archbishop Neville) was breaking the strict rule, and Morton later complained about this to the Pope.

 

Morton spreading rumours? (3)

I agree with you Marie, probably not his style

Crowland's Chronology & Buckingham's Actions (4 & 5)

Is very like that of the Great Chronicle

Not in regard to when the rumours started. Crowland is quite clear that this did not happen until a very late stage in the planning of the rebellion.

- in fact did Fabyan get his material from the same source, he was writing years' after Crowland? As I said earlier, he was a merchant, he'd be good at London stuff, not necessarily that elsewhere.

The question of where London writers got their material is complicated. There would have been the journals of the Common Council available for perusal, and the official notes that had been kept in some fashion since the abandonment of the main city chronicle in the 1430s, which notes had in the 1490s become the basis for the new city chronicle now known as Vitellius AXVI (see Kingsford’s Chronicles of London), which was maintained from that point onwards. Then there were, apparently, lots and lots of private memoirs and notes that people like Fabyan and the GC author could have had access to. CC is unlikely since to see this would have required a visit to Crowland Abbey. For the period between the 1430s and 1495 there is no really authoritative contemporary city chronicle as that portion of Vitellius AXVI incorporates a lot of errors as well as genuine stuff from the notes that had been kept.

 

I took another look at the Parliament Roll and it very clearly states that each bunch of rebels was incited by Buckingham - as it gives each area of rebellion it cites him, not Morton, or Nandyke or Rushe who were also named as conspiring with him at Brecon. It also says that it was Buckingham (not Morton et al) who was in correspondence with HT, who encouraged him to raise a fleet of foreigners and who set out to meet the arrival of that fleet on 18 October. Does the PR Roll do this, I wonder, to go some way to placating EW and the remaining Woodvilles - I recall she came out of Sanctuary round about this time?

Who knows? Acts of Attainder are not usually very reliable because they over-simplify events for convenience. For instance, if you believe the Act of Attainder after Stoke, every single rebel met Lincoln on his landing at Furness. I don’t see much effort to placate the Woodvilles at this point, given the people attainted.

The composition of the majority of rebels were Woodville relations and adherents including the very few who were executed. It does raise the question whether Buckingham would have supported all this if he'd known the princes were dead. The PR do tell us that he gathered a number of men at Brecon and rioted there

 

The July Plot (6)

Yes Marie is right. According to Baldwin this is a combination of accounts of John Stow (16th century) and the French Chronicler Thomas Basin (ah French rumours again) which Horrox combines with an order given by Richard date 29 July instructing the Chancellor to appoint a Commission to try unnamed men for an 'enterprise'.

Ah, you have it from Baldwin! I have Stow’s text, if you’re interested in seeing. It’s not really dated but appears in context. I would ignore Basin, perhaps, but I will check him. I also have the text of the Signet warrant of 29 July, if that would be of interest.

 

For once I agree with Hicks who queries why the GC did not report the supposed rescue attempt or the executions nor was there any mention in the legal records of a trial. The names of the four men are not amongst those attainted in 1484 (they might not have had property of course). So true or false? 

Sorry, Hicks is being disingenuous. We have no records of treason trials surviving for Richard’s reign bar a couple that have turned up by chance in odd places. Presumably all the rest were scrapped, I’m sure Michael Hicks knows this, but hopes we don’t. Stow was a careful researcher, and what he gives looks very much like the sort of detail that would have been in an indictment, including names and occupations.

 

 

Possible Contact Between Buckingham and King Louis (8)

Well he seems to have been in contact with HT so perhaps Morton gave him a reference? Or HT had approached Louis about the enterprise?

This was Buckingham who had approached Louis, and it would have been well before the alleged letter to HT which is mentioned in the Act of Attainder, and possibly even before he left London. It may well be that Richard knew perfectly well that Buckingham had sent his herald to France. He may even have gone over in company with Richard’s herald, Blanc Sanglier. Or not. It’s the million-dollar question, but I wonder if Louis thought he might be stirring up trouble between Richard and Buckingham in sending him Buckingham’s herald?

We have no evidence of Morton’s involvement in this, despite his earlier sojourn in France. Remember that Morton did not flee either to HT or Louis after the failure of the rebellion, and did not return to England until November 1485. What he was doing himself during that period is extremely interesting, but something else altogether.

 

Marie

 

 

 

From: RichardIIIForum@groups.io <RichardIIIForum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Hilary Jones via Groups.Io
Sent: 20 January 2020 12:52
To: richardiiiforum@groups.io; RichardIIIForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [RichardIIIForum] Rumours, Buckingham, Morton and the October Rebellions

 

Hi Marie/ Doug et al

 

(Marie pop in whenever you like, we value your contribution very much)

 

For speed I'll match my comments to yours Marie.

 

The accuracy of the Great Chronicle (1)

I'm actually beginning to think parts of it are more accurate than I once thought. I'll explain why when we come to Buckingham. And of course one has to bear in mind that at the time it was written certain things were risky to say. To me both Crowland and particularly Rous are not to be trusted, the former because of its date (1486) and association with MB through Cambridge University, the latter because Rous (no lover of HT) was clearly on a mission to get the Beauchamp lands restored and one way was to trash the reputation of the man he'd once praised. I agree with you though Marie that we can use them to get a chronological history of when the rumours supposedly began. The English had a history of using rumour to destabilise the French during the Hundred Years War; I reckon Mancini was suggesting playing them at their own game. The work/letter is dated December 1483, so could be based on updated news since he left England in July? Sorry I just don't trust Mancini or his source/sources of information.`

Morton and Oliver King (2)

I broadly agree. I think Stallworth has to be our purest source for the information on the death of Hastings and the arrest of the bishops - and indeed Forster. He doesn't actually connect the bishops (and King) or Forster with the death of Hastings, just that they all happened together, so one concludes it's likely. His indication that they will soon be transferred to one of Richard's properties implies that their crime was not as great as Hastings, which could indicate that they knew what was going on but didn't act to prevent it.

Morton spreading rumours? (3)

I agree with you Marie, probably not his style

Crowland's Chronology & Buckingham's Actions (4 & 5)

Is very like that of the Great Chronicle - in fact did Fabyan get his material from the same source, he was writing years' after Crowland? As I said earlier, he was a merchant, he'd be good at London stuff, not necessarily that elsewhere.

I took another look at the Parliament Roll and it very clearly states that each bunch of rebels was incited by Buckingham - as it gives each area of rebellion it cites him, not Morton, or Nandyke or Rushe who were also named as conspiring with him at Brecon. It also says that it was Buckingham (not Morton et al) who was in correspondence with HT, who encouraged him to raise a fleet of foreigners and who set out to meet the arrival of that fleet on 18 October. Does the PR Roll do this, I wonder, to go some way to placating EW and the remaining Woodvilles - I recall she came out of Sanctuary round about this time? The composition of the majority of rebels were Woodville relations and adherents including the very few who were executed. It does raise the question whether Buckingham would have supported all this if he'd known the princes were dead. The PR do tell us that he gathered a number of men at Brecon and rioted there

The July Plot (6)

Yes Marie is right. According to Baldwin this is a combination of accounts of John Stow (16th century) and the French Chronicler Thomas Basin (ah French rumours again) which Horrox combines with an order given by Richard date 29 July instructing the Chancellor to appoint a Commission to try unnamed men for an 'enterprise'. For once I agree with Hicks who queries why the GC did not report the supposed rescue attempt or the executions nor was there any mention in the legal records of a trial. The names of the four men are not amongst those attainted in 1484 (they might not have had property of course). So true or false? 

Possible Contact Between Buckingham and King Louis (8)

Well he seems to have been in contact with HT so perhaps Morton gave him a reference? Or HT had approached Louis about the enterprise?

 

Hope my contribution helps. H

 

 

 

On Sunday, 19 January 2020, 23:35:41 GMT, Marie Walsh <walshmarie414@...> wrote:

 

 

Hi all,

Sorry I keep popping up breathlessly and popping down gain – I really don’t have the time for the forum these days but am reluctant to let it drop completely.

Have quickly read through the posts on Buckingham’s role in 1483 and just wanted to say a few things.

  1. The accuracy of the Great Chronicle. I always try to look at the development of any tale through the chronicles and histories, because you can always see a development through time, and also particular political expediencies at particular periods.  I haven’t had time to do so with this, but something has clearly gone wrong with the chronology, with the Princes being dead, or believed dead, before Richard took the throne. Quite evidently they were still known to be alive in the Tower in late July when the plot to free them was foiled. Crowland (c.1485) places the rumours much later, but Rous (1490) has the boys killed before Richard becomes king. This notion (that Richard killed them in order to pave his way to the throne rather than make himself more secure as king) seems to have originated in France. It’s implicit in Mancini’s muddled chronology, and was openly asserted (very possibly on the basis of Mancini’s text) by the Chancellor of France at the Estates-General on 5 January 1484. I agree that there’s absolutely no indication that anybody believed this to be so in London or anywhere else in England in June 1483. It’s a tidier claim for Richard’s enemies, of course. It’s more difficult to argue that he needed to kill them to stay on the throne if he hadn’t needed to kill them to get on the throne.
  2. Morton and Oliver King. King was only ever accused of involvement in the Hastings plot, and at that time Edward V was still king. We unfortunately do not know when the precontract claim as first disclosed, but on 9 June Stallworth wrote to Sir W Stonor from Westminster to report that coronation preparations were full-steam-ahead. On the 10th Richard wrote that letter to York begging for armed men to protect him and Buckingham against the Queen and her affinity, and on the 11th to Lord Neville. Hastings was arrested and executed on Friday 13th. On Tuesday 16th the Queen handed over her younger son, and on the same day the first steps were taken to postpone – not cancel - the coronation (which was due to take place that coming Sunday) and accompanying parliament. Ralph Shaa’s speech publicly announcing the precontract was on the 22nd. Morton’s motives at Brecon are hard to fathom. He ditched Buckingham as soon as he’d been freed, and didn’t join the other rebels at Tudor’s court. He was clearly very hostile to Richard, but I get the impression his loyalties lay more with Edward IV’s issue rather than Tudor.  Money? Not in Morton’s case – he had plenty as a bishop. Sometimes people just are political zealots and will risk a lot for a cause they believe in.
  3. I would question whether Morton was in a position to be spreading rumours of the Princes’ deaths from imprisonment in Wales.
  4. Crowland’s chronology is that he talks about Richard’s coronation and disappearance North on progress, and tells us the Princes remained in the Tower, that there was a plot, foiled, to spirit their sisters abroad. Then; “When at last the people around the city of London and in Kent, Essex, Sussex, Hampshire, Dorset, Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire . . . began considering vengeance, public proclamation having been made that Henry, duke of Buckingham, then living at Brecknock in Wales, being repentant of what had been done, would be captain-in-chief in this affair, a rumour arose that Kong Edward’s sons, by some unknown manner of violent destruction, had met their fate. For this reason, all those who had begun this agitation. . . remembered Henry, earl of Richmond. . . .”
  5. I agree that Buckingham’s plan would have been to either force Richard to divide his forces or trap him in a pincer movement. He wasn’t planning to stay at Brecon – he moved out of Brecon eastwards, and no doubt would have gathered men from his English estates as he went forward. Three things went wrong. First, people did not flock to his banners. Second, he unfurled those banners late in relation to some of the other rebel groups, particularly given how far he had to travel, and thirdly the rains caused flooding which blocked his army’s passage over the Severn.
  6. The details of the July plot come from Stow, not from the January Act of Attainder, so there is no reason to think the executions were delayed. Stow seems to have been working from an indictment that has since been lost.
  7. Richard’s coronation was on 6 July. Buckingham appears to have been still in London on July 17, as John Howard’s accounts record a visit he made that day to Buckingham’s London home.
  8. Did Buckingham have contact with King Louis? Well, shortly before 18 August Richard received a letter from King Louis which Louis had sent to him via Buckingham Herald. This, as I understand it (but maybe I’m wrong), would have been the Duke of Buckingham’s personal herald.

Marie

 

From: RichardIIIForum@groups.io <RichardIIIForum@groups.io> On Behalf Of Doug Stamate
Sent: 17 January 2020 17:24
To: RichardIIIForum@groups.io
Subject: Re: [RichardIIIForum] Rumours, Buckingham, Morton and the October Rebellions

 

 

 

 

Hilary wrote:

Hi Doug, I agree with all this which is why it's so perplexing and the biggest thing to me is the motivation of Morton at this point. There are definitely some real questions.

Firstly, if Buckingham was leading a rebellion, why would the rebels be joining him in Brecon, which is what the GC seems to imply. Wouldn't you have thought they would have focused on London with Richard out of the way? And why was he still in Brecon if he was leading it?”

 

Doug here:

My understanding is that those rebels in Kent were supposed to join up and head for London, which is something Richard did his best to provide against (successfully, too). It’s also a good tactical move to try and force your opponent to divide his forces, with the presumption that such a move would increase one’s own chances. So we have risings in Kent and just to the west (I don’t know the names of those counties) which would almost certainly cause a concentration of Richard’s men to London to protect the capital. Then have risings in the West Country where Tudor was expected to land with his reinforcements from Brittany. IOW, Richard would be forced from the outset to divide his forces or risk either losing London or having the rebellion in the West develop into something really serious. So I think the reason Buckingham was still in Brecon was because people were mislead by the grants Buckingham had received from Richard; grants that, on the surface anyway, made Buckingham appear to control much of Wales as well as his own patrimony. Seemingly, no consideration was taken on whether Buckingham actually could raise troops from those grants (or even his own properties).

So, until Tudor had actually landed, Brecon was a good mustering site for all those expected troops. Once the troops had gathered, I imagine they would have moved towards Gloucester while Tudor did the same from whichever port he’d landed at.

 

Hilary wrote:

“Secondly the other intriguing thing is in Stallworth's letter and I forgot to mention that. Stallworth tells us that Morton and Rochester are in the Tower, but will soon be out and sent elsewhere

'The lord Arsbyschop of Yorke, the Byshop of Ely are zit the toure with Master Oliver Kynge (I suppose they schall come oute neverthetlesse) ther ar men in ther placese for sure kepynge. And I suppose that ther shall be sente menne of mu lord protectour to theis lordys places in the countre. They are not lyke to come oute off ward zytt.'

Can we deduce anything of the scale of Morton's crime from this? If Stallworth is getting information from John Russell then he is clearly led to believe that, although Morton, Rotherham and King have obviously been up to something, it doesn't warrant the penalty inflicted on Hastings and I don't think the fact that they were clerics would have influenced this - remember Langstrother. Yet it's enough to get them put away for some time.”

 

Doug here:

The plot against Richard and Buckingham, which cost Hastings’ his head had, I think, two parts. The second part followed on from the failure of the first part, which was to have the Council reject the Pre-Contract. I think Rotherham, Morton and King were well known as opponents of accepting the Pre-Contract and likely were also known to have lobbied other Council members to reject it. That would have been “Part One.” “Part Two” would have been the plot aimed at killing Richard and Buckingham, quite possibly originated by Dorset, who didn’t escape to Brittany until several months later. However, actual proof of the involvement of Rotherham, Morton and King in that second part may have been lacking, so they were simply placed into custody.

 

Hilary concluded:

“Secondly, on the issue of rumour, I tried out a 'focus group' on the current rumours with four friends last weekend. Everyone's account was different by a considerable degree. And surprisingly, even today, these accounts didn't come from the media but from a friend of a friend of a friend, even a friend in the US. One can see that if someone made a casual (but of course deliberate) remark in a tavern in London - or even several taverns - how such a rumour could have taken on a life of its own, which is just what the French would love.

The other thing which surprises me is how long it took Richard to execute the men arrested for the break in to the Tower (that's if it happened). He didn't do it until early 1484 at the same time as the other rebels (well they are in the same list). Wouldn't you have thought he would have got a lot of information out of them by then?”

 

Doug here:

Well, any rumor about the boys could have been floating around London taverns anytime after Richard ascended the throne, but were simply regarded as unfounded gossip. As best e can tell, such rumors weren’t considered valid enough to mention in any letters, private or official at that point in time. After the attempt to free the boys, however, and especially after rebellion had broken out, any such rumors could easily take on a new life, finally reaching places outside London; places such as Croyland. The rumor seems to have spread after the rebellion broke out and it would have been then, or so I think, that any French involvement would have been.

The attempt was made, I believe, in July with idea being that it would be easier to get the boys out of the Tower when Richard wasn’t in London. Richard was crowned on 2 July and by the 23rd was, according to Williamson, in Reading before continuing on to Oxford. The actual attempt was made, I believe, during the last week of July and it may have been both the failure of the plot and the fact that Richard was on a Progress that kept those involved alive. During the time they were in custody, one would imagine there’d have been plenty of time for questioning, but that period of imprisonment also coincided with the rebellion so official attention may have been somewhat diverted – especially if the prisoners couldn’t provide much information regarding the rebellion itself. Once the rebellion was put down, however, it became a different matter and what might have been overlooked, at least to the extent of not requiring the death penalty, became a different matter – they’d been involved in an attempt aimed at not only freeing Edward and Richard, but also to return Edward to the throne. Something that could only have been accomplished over Richard’s dead body.

It’s the best I’ve got...

Doug

 

 

 

 


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


nico11238@...
 

Hi Hilary,

Please do put the chart on the website, and yes, I will add others. I have done most of the main WoR protagonists, and some of them are quite surprising. Another thought I had on Buckingham's chart was that he probably had a very good rapport with Anne Neville, I will probably tackle the Warwick group with Richard and Clarence. The one who still gives me a headache is MB as her 1441 chart fits much better than 1443, and some of the IPMs give me the thought that she may have been born in 1442.

By the way, thanks to you and Marie for the extremely helpful sources discussion.

Nico