History Hub聽 permalink
Richard III
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by Japa (U14548392) on Monday, 13th December 2010
I am currently studying Richard III. I believe that his residence during his short reign was at the Tower of London. Is that correct? and would his wife Anne Neville also have lived there?
-
Message 2
Posted by clematised (U3233879) on Monday, 13th December 2010
a little reading from CASSEROLEON may shed some light on your question
Edna -
Message 3
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi Japa,
It's been absolutely ages since we've had a Richard III discussion, so it was really nice to see your thread at the top of the list.
Minette Minor and Andrew Spencer are the experts on R3, but they've not been out and about for a while now, so, if I may, I'll offer the bit I know about Richard's residence in London.
When he arrived in the capital at the beginning of May 1483, Gloucester went to his town house on Bishopsgate Street - Crosby Place. This residence still exists, but not in its original location. It was moved - literally brick by numbered brick - to Chelsea in 1910 You can read about it here:
Anne Neville joined her husband at Crosby Place on June 5th 1483. Richard was by now dividing his time between Bishopsgate Street and his mother's house at Baynard's Castle. In those crucial weeks leading up to the announcement of his accession Mancini comments that the Protector had:
"...purposely betaken himself to his mother's house so that these events might not take place in the Tower where the young King was."
In haste,
SST. -
Message 4
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Japa - I've just realised that your original question was about Richard's places of residence "during his short reign".
After his coronation Richard spent much time at the Palace of Westminster (Anne Neville actually died there in 1485), as well as at Greenwich. He was also briefly at Windsor. So far I have not come across any mention of the Tower as a favourite residence!
Richard was actually at Nottingham Castle in 1484 when he received the devastating news that his son and heir, Edward of Middleham, Prrince of Wales, had died, and when he returned there just before Bosworth he referred to that sad place as "the castle of his care". -
Message 5
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi Temperance..
When I saw the post I thought of telling japa to hold on till you popped up.. Perhaps she has some other different angles to raise about "Dick".. Was he ever a "Dick"?... After all Dick Whittingdon surely was before this?
Cass -
Message 6
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
I've no idea, Cass - best ask Minette. But be careful how you put it! -
Message 7
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
"Richard was actually at Nottingham Castle in 1484 when he received the devastating news that his son and heir, Edward of Middleham, Prrince of Wales, had died,"
Do you know what happened to Richard's widow after his death Temp?
Sorry if this is a stupid question.
I've just been looking at Richard's portrait, can't understand why artists of the day always painted wimpy, skinny hands on these men. All the nobles were trained from an early age in warfare, they were well used to handling horses, swords etc, stands to reason that their hands would have been strong and large.
-
Message 8
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Richard was a widower , ID. Anne Neville died at Westminster on 16th March 1485 - she drew her last breath during a total eclipse of the sun. A terrible blow for Richard - especially as his only legitimate child had died just months before.
The total eclipse on that morning proved to be a terrible omen. -
Message 9
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Thanks Temp, a sad story. In hindsight I suppose it could be called merciful that his wife and son were not there for Bosworth and its aftermath. Doubtful that Henry VII would have let them live, definitely not a son anyway.
-
Message 10
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Tuesday, 14th December 2010
Hi Temp and ID,
As you probably know Josephine Tey has some good descriptions of where Richard III lived, among other things in her book "The Daughter of Time"
Gran -
Message 11
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Thursday, 16th December 2010
Hi Gran,
Glad you're still around! Isn't life dull without a Richard III thread? Wish Andrew and Minette would come back.
You're dead right about Tey mentioning where Richard lived - especially Crosby Place.
Have you read any good books recently? I've just started Elizabeth Norton's biography of Margaret Beaufort - I intended to keep it as a treat for those dreary days between Christmas and New Year, but I've never been very good at delayed gratification, so I'll no doubt have it finished by Sunday. I've also got Norton's biographies of Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves and I'm determined that I will *not* touch them until Boxing Day...
SST -
Message 12
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Thursday, 16th December 2010
Hello temp,
I so miss Richard, the discussions were so much fun, and learning. I have only just finished Tey, but my special treat which I amkeeping for Christmas is Alison Wier's "the Captive Queen"
Right now I am reading Tony Blair but I am not sure I will finish that!!
Do you have any more suggetions for reading about Richard?
All the bst
Gran -
Message 13
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 17th December 2010
Hello!
Well I for one am back but isn't it intesting how Richard III will not go away!? All sorts of people are interested by him which must mean - all is not settled. Eat your heart out David Starkey and co!
Having almost apologized there...I'm learning to be assertive, (really!) Andrew is "assertive". I play dead or shout and there is the middle way. It is wonderful to see that many people are still interested in this man and the events which surround him. Better than any Agatha Christie. I "soothe" myself to bed with Lynda la Plante at the moment, Hicks, especially on Anne Neville, made me too hyper.
Gran, I love your input. You are so enthusiatic but please don't aways believe that what Alison Weir writes is the "truth". She is very biased against Richard III. Rather like reading "the Sun" rather than "Hansard" for what happened in Parliament. Easily accessible but so often factually wrong. She makes money writing history books, not "real" history. She has cornered a "market" which has been let down. All I can say is please keep an open mind.
For example when she says, this person thought this. Ask yourself HOW does she know what that person thought? Historians cannot tell what people actually thought. We only have facts to go on. I think you should read about Elizabeth Woodville. As a "Gran" you have children, history is about human nature and I for one, believe that the real reason I love History is because it is about people...LIke you and me. Think for yourself. With great adoration for doing this, Minette. -
Message 14
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Saturday, 18th December 2010
Hi Gran,
I am reading the same book, "The Captive Queen" by Alison Weir; one of the very few books on English medieval history I could find here in Georgia, USA.
The book is a good read; you wonder why Thomas Beckett of "Murder in the Cathedral" fame, was so determined on picking a fight with Henry II and always going for one-upmanship with the King. Reading the book, I find I do not care about Beckett at all; definitely a meddlesome priest!
But that is taking the discussion away from our "hero/villain", dear old Dickie III:
Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer by this sun of York, and the clouds that lowered upon our house, in the deep bosom of the ocean are buried.聽
Teach not thy lips such scorn gentle lady, for they were made for kissing, not for such contempt聽
Tas -
Message 15
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Saturday, 18th December 2010
Hi Minette,
I will read Alison Wier with a pinch of salt, as I do with most things, but if you have not already read it I think you may enjoy the Josephine Tey book I mentioned above, she sets out the evidence against Richard, and debunks most of it, and a few other things as well.
These writers of novels marshall their evidence then write a story around what they have found. Have a lovely christmas
All the best
Gran -
Message 16
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Saturday, 18th December 2010
Hi Tas
Yes, I hope "the Captive Queen" keeps me busy over the break. having read about Thomas Becket before, I wonder if he was almost suicidal in his trumpeting against Henry II who always seemed to be more sinned against than sinning. Luckily I have no problems getting a good selection of English History books from my library, I live in New Zealand. Are you an Expat too?
All the best
Gran -
Message 17
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 20th December 2010
No Gran, I am not an expat. I did live in England once and got my B.Sc. (Special) in Physics from there. For long I have lived in the U.S.A.
Henry II comes off as a man of great, sometimes of violent passions; Eleanor comes off as a fairly reasonable queen, once passionate. Perhaps the only lady in history who was queen of both England and France. The book is a truly engrossing read!
I better not say more, lest I give too much away and destroy your reading pleasure.
One thing I do not understand about this book; perhaps you can help me after you have read the book. Every chapter is set at a new castle. Now admittedly Henry and Eleanor had quite a few castles, But they seem to spend a lot of their time at these castles. Did they not have a place they could call home? A place where they could take off their boots, get the favorite dressing gown, get their favorite slippers, start the home fires burning and just chill out. Why all this travel every where?
Tas -
Message 18
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 20th December 2010
Tas
Re 麻豆约拍s I suppose Henry II had to regard somewhere in Anjou as "麻豆约拍" in that sense, and Eleanor somewhere in Aquitaine.. They were where they both grew up and they remained part of the Angevin Empire.
In fact this may well be related to that unique fact that Henry II had his eldest son crowned King while he himself was still on the throne. The "Young King" as he was known, had been tutored by Thomas Becket, and part of the tensions between Becket and Henry II seem to be related to Becket's influence over the "Young King" and his presence in the Young King's Court rather than the Royal Court... Hence his absence when a drunken Henry II supposedly said "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?"
But Henry II famously toured the country like a whirlwind at his accession checking on the castles, because during the Civil War many local barons had put up unlicenced castles, and the King made sure that they were pulled down.
No doubt he also checked on the condition of the official castles; and there were several reasons why he should continue to do so;
(a) The responsibility to maintain castles and an appropriate military force went along with the appointment of someone as a "tenant in chief". For the system to be kept "fit for purpose" regular inspection was vital.
(b) Entertaining underpinned the working of the system and everyone of note was expected to attend the King's court at the special "Crown-Wearing" moments of the year, at which the King threw banquets. At that period when food did not keep easily or travel far, however, the barons reciprocated by inviting the King and his Court to be "royally entertained" as a sort of tax in kind. The King and his court stayed long enough to nearly empty the cellars.: and it was a very concrete way of checking on the economic health of the region producing that produce. This was a system perfected by Elizabeth I who used it to eke out the diminshing royal funds.
(c) Traditionally the King's Court was the highest secular court (hence the dispute about Church Courts) and wherever the King held court he could try cases. By travelling around Henry was able to keep in touch with what was going on in his kingdom. But once things were settled down he appointed "Circuit Judges" empowered to set up temporary "Crown Courts" to bring "The King's Peace" through regular "Sessions".
Cass -
Message 19
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Monday, 20th December 2010
Hi Cass,
That is very interesting:
the barons reciprocated by inviting the King and his Court to be "royally entertained" as a sort of tax in kind. The King and his court stayed long enough to nearly empty the cellars.聽
If you do not pay your tax by April 15 ( the deadline here in the US) the Chief of the IRS will visit you. Hope you have enough California Chardonnay in your cellars.
I still do not understand what the quarrel between Beckett and Henry was about. I thought all of Henry's children were extremely ungrateful. The young King seemed to take himself too seriously, and did not want to wait, as did Richard. Henry was a very strong King, and my sympathies are mostly with him, almost three quarters of the way through the book.
I better not say much more, lest I spoil Gran's pleasure.
Merry Christmas and a very happy new year!
Tas -
Message 20
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Monday, 20th December 2010
Hi Tas,
Probably one of Henry's bigger mistakes was making his son into another king, there is just not enough room for more than one king, also the Young King was fairly profligate it appears. Dont worry Tas I have read many versions of the stary by different authors I just enjoy historical novels, especially about R3. Tas, do you know about the booksellers in England who send books all around the world freight free? Just ask if you are interested.
All the best
Gran -
Message 21
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 21st December 2010
Hi Gran,
I used to buy my important books from Foyle's, I think located not too far from Leicester Square in London. However, my public library, Chelsea Public Library, was always well-stocked with books; else I would have remained uneducated. London was then a wonderful city to live in. I do not know about now. So many things to do, so much going on all the time. They had a thing called "What's on", which gave you about all the goings on in the city. There were always wonderful plays on the London stage, ranging from the most serious to just spectacular, the spectacular ones typically at the London Palladium.
About Henry II, I completely agree with you; it was a very bad idea to create two kings, especially at the age when he was so immature; a lot of source for his grief; I am sure he must have regretted it a lot later.
However, why did Beckett, after he had been accepted by Henry into his good graces, just go on to excommunicate the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of some other place for crowning the young king in his absence. Did he not know the old saying, "Let sleeping dogs lie!" He appears some one bent on running King's nose in the dirt and seeking his own death.
I think one of Henry's mistakes was to make too much of this man.
In my view Henry was a great King, but he did make some monumental mistakes. What do you think?
Tas -
Message 22
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Tuesday, 21st December 2010
Hi Tas,
You may notice that I arrive a little late, I currently live in New Zealand although I originate from England, I have access to the Auckland library in which I can get just about any book and I love it. You will probably be able to get the books of Sharon Kay Penman, (she dropped the Kay for the English public) she is a US author but has written some very good English History books, notably "The Sunne in Spendour" about RIII, and a whole trilogy about Henry II and his family I enjoyed all of them.
Yes I am sure you enjoyed your time in London, I often think that it would be nice to be around living history again, maybe that is why I enjoy the historical novels.
You are right about Henry making too much of Beckett, what a strange man, determined to be martyred, evidenced by his hair shirt which was aparently alive and the lice had burrowed into his skin. Did you ever read about how Henry was treated on his deathbed? but then I wont spoil your reading, Enjoy.
All the Best
Gran -
Message 23
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 22nd December 2010
Couldn't agree with you both, Gran and Tas, more! Henry II was a fascinating king and Thomas Beckett was anextremely strange man. I'm about to say what I always warn others of doing, that is rejoice in the play, "The Lion in Winter". Wonderful script and not "off piste" on how Henry II and Eleanor of Acquitaine appear to have functioned. Full of raging and arguments and a reluctant admiration. Many say that the Planatgenets were charcterized by their tremendous energy and extreme mood swings, or tempers.
Beckett appears to have been a particulary odd piece of work. One minute he was the young Henry's playmate and fellow womaniser and then when made AB of Canters by Henry to fight the power of the Church, found God, (or his own power?) and made nothing but trouble for his old friend. He really did cause all sorts of problems for Henry, negoitiating with foreign powers etc., agreeing to meet and reconcile with Henry and then backing out, using Mother Church as his protector in all things - except of course one of Henry II's rages. We shall probably never know what actually happened to lead to the "murder in the cathedral"but goodness knows Henry paid for it in many ways, one being to be whipped in Canterbury by the monks of the cathedral.
I've been fortunate enough to have vististed Canterbury many times and Beckett still lives. The wonderful worn stone steps which once led up to his tomb, worn away by so many pilgrims who travelled there to to pray for his soul. The chapel which has X marks the spot of where he stumbled and died and what happened to his head! Just thought, this was almost 1,000 years ago now! Did Becket win?
It seems so. He is venerated and has been sainted and Henry II ended his days knowing that the son he loved, John, had betrayed him. He had joined with Richard (I) to attempt to de-throne his father. I love this bit but it is said that before Henry turned his face to the wall and died
he was so angry and sad, his lastwords to his illegitimate son Geoffrey, were, "You are my true born son. The others were the true b.....ds"!
So, hopefully linking into the fact that legitimacy DID matter, not only for Henry II in the c12th but also for Henry VIII in the C16th - I am dimly viewing, "The Other Boylen Girl" and am trying to think how old Henry VIII's illegitimate and healthy son, the Earl of Richmond was at the time of all this High Drama!
Odd how people say of Edward's IV's marriage to Liz Woodville that ..."even IF Edward IV had been married to Lady Eleanor Butler in 1461, because the sons of his marriage to Liz Woodville in 1464 were born AFTER the death of Lady Eleanor in 1468, they could still be considered legitimate". WHY? But this is often said quite seriously. If we take this logically than IF Henry VIII had married Bessie Blount, in 1533 (after the death of Katherine of Aragon) perhaps, then Henry Earl of Richmond would have become his official heir and all would have been well! Oh to have an illogical mind and transitory "values" and beliefs....
To point to this "minor"? matter is a treasonable offence to Richard III haters so I'll take myself off to the "naughty chair"!
Cheers, And a Happy Christmas. Minette. -
Message 24
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Wednesday, 22nd December 2010
p.s. Gran I shall be re-reading Sharon Penman's "Sunne in Splendour" over Christmas. When it was written at almost the same time as Paul Murrey Kendall's "Richard III" many hens went all a flutter in the established History Nest. They were both so accurate, unlike Weir and Gregory, and the worst I can find written about Kendall is that he was an American Professor of English! Well at least he wrote well and still few of the great Richard III "scholars"
can dispute his facts! I wonder if anyone in the new year will be so intrigued by Henry V and start a thread about him? This glorious king, made famous by Shakespeare for being "good" and who slit the throats of the captured at Agincourt. Doubt it. Can't think why? 
-
Message 25
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 23rd December 2010
Hi Minette,
Many say that the Planatgenets were charcterized by their tremendous energy and extreme mood swings, or tempers.聽
I can well believe that. It seems to have been more so with Henry II than with the others. He seems to have done everything right from a power-political point of view, until he made Young Henry, King. That was a very big mistake. Children should be firmly kept under discipline until it is their time. This is the law of the jungle; young lions for example, and it should be the rule of Kings.
Of course, you can go too far. For example in the 17th Century, the Mughal Emperor, Aurangzeb kept his son a prisoner, under the mere suspicion of betrayal. Suleyman the Magnificent of the Ottoman Empire made his ablest son drink poison in his presence, because his favorite queen wanted her own son to replace him on the throne.
his lastwords to his illegitimate son Geoffrey, were, "You are my true born son. The others were the true b.....ds"! 聽
Truer words could not have been said! I really feel sorry for Henry II; what did he have at the end of his life. He had married this beautiful, powerful queen of France, partly to get hold of Aquitaine, he had had a long affair with Rosmund, he had worked so hard to make his sons the successors to his great Empire, stretching form England to Aquitaine, and then to find all his sons in rebellion. The son he had made King in his lifetime, the apple of his eye John, and Richard. Strange that in just one generation they had lost all the Empire in France, that it cost Henry II his entire life to create. Tragic! If there was no English Channel, John may have lost England as well.
Just shows that you can try your best, but you can't predict what history is going to do with what you have achieved.
Tas -
Message 26
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Monday, 27th December 2010
Dear Tas,
You said of Henry II, the first Plantagent king, "just shows that you can try your best but you can't predict what history is going to do with what you have achieved". So very apt for the last Plantagenet king, Richard III!
Henry II began an illustrious dynasty, he died in bed even if rather depressed. He has a tomb. Richard III died fighting (20 years younger than Henry) for his throne against a man who was not remotely royal, was hacked to bits, stripped and flung over a horse to be carted off to some grave now lost to history. Richard the killer king. Henry II the energetic.
Henry II was responsible for killing a saint, Thomas Beckett and is remembered fondly. Richard III killed....according to "history" where can we start? Hastings, an old rouee who was his brother's friend and Buckingham whose "popular" rebellion against him failed due to rain.
The rest is conjecture.
So odd and sad that a man who became so popular during his lifetime for administering the law well, would in death have to proove himself innocent not guilty of crimes levelled at him. The Tudors ushered in a new regime and threw mud at Richard which has stuck for far too long. Regime changes have their casualties but history usually restores the balance. The problem is....since Richard's death all of our kings and queens are descended from that non royal Henry Tudor. Why rock the boat?! How the British love tradition! -
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 28th December 2010
Hi Minette,
I am still much involved with Henry II.
Regarding the "Murder in the Cathedral", would it have had such a huge impact if it had not been inside Canterbury Cathedral. If Henry really wanted to have Beckett out of his way, he could have sent an Assassin abroad, when Becket was in exile, and no one would even have noticed it.
It seems Alison Weir is right in the scene where Henry is a bit high in the cups, and the Archbishop of York and another Bishop who had also officiated at the coronation of Young Henry, tell him that Becket has excommunicated them for that.
That was making sheer mischief, when he had almost just been taken back into the good graces of Henry. The man wanted to show he was the more important one.
Henry rises and says to no one in particular, "is there no one who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
From our modern perspective, I would have said, once Henry was sure here was a skunk, "he should never have gotten into a pi......g contest with a skunk." I never liked him throughout the book. Fawning on Henry, doing every bidding, and once he is elevated to his high office, getting into slanging match with the King, who had been so kind to him, who had in fact made him whatever he was.
The other thing is, in those days people took religion so seriously; if you were excommunicated, you were cut off from the Church, from eternal salvation; it was like a religious 'Fatwa.'
Of course, in those days there was little else to fall back on; no TV, no Radio, not even access to a library of books. Apart from praying, I wonder how people spent their time in the medieval ages. Eleanor of Aquitaine apparently did a lot of needle work. Perhaps work on something like the Bayou Tapestries?
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 29th December 2010
Dear Minette and (hopefully) also Andrew,
Right trusty, worshipful and honourable good friends, I greet you well.
Just a brief query. I'm reading Elizabeth Norton's biography of Margaret Beaufort at the moment and I'm becoming very interested in MB's fourth husband, Thomas Lord Stanley. Just how powerful was this man and why did Richard not see through him earlier? Why did he not move against Stanley in the autumn of 1483, after the Buckingham rebellion? Dare I say it, but Richard seems to have been *afraid* of offending Stanley - even as early as the summer of 1483? Can this be true?
Norton says something interesting about the Scottish campaign of 1482. She declares (as Andrew has done on previous threads) that this proved to be a largely unsuccessful campaign and that the taking of Berwick - which I thought was *Richard's* triumph - was in fact Stanley's :
"... it was Stanley who provided the only glimpse of success, capturing Berwick with a force of 4,000 men."
Is this true?
Norton further comments:
"It was later suggested by the Elizabethan poet Robert Glover that this success led to some jealousy bwtween Stanley and the KIng's brother, and he claimed that when the pair quarrelled, Stanley responded by capturing the duke's standard. Whether this actualy occurred can no longer be verified, but it does provide a hint of an earlier tension between Stanley and Gloucester which may account for something of the conduct of the two men towards each other after Edward IV's death."
Mmm. We don't trust poets around here, do we, especially not Elizabethan ones?
SST. -
Message 29
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Monday, 3rd January 2011
Dear SST, the same to you! And of course a very happy New Year as well. I think Andrew may have left the building for now, I too hope that he will return...But to Stanley, almost as curious as dear Margaret Beaufort herself, and her fourth husband.
Sometimes I often wish that I was indeed a traditionalist, life would be so much more...simple, less strange behaviour to explain. Thomas Stanley is indeed one of the strangest people in Richard's life. If only Richard had indeed been more "ruthless" just think how much easier his life would have been for him?
At the time of the "Hastings Murder" which so many love to dwell upon endlessly, it seems to me that the real reasons, well the most plausable ones, are over-looked, that is there actually was a plot against Richard and Hastings as his most trusted friend bore the brunt of his anger and hurt. But what of the others found with him - especially Stanley? He was simply bound over to keep the peace and sent to his estates for a month or so before coming back to Court to take his place again on the Royal Council. That Richard was so blood thirsty....
However this unscrupilous king had acted in this way towards Stanley's wife Maragert Beaufort when he found she was embroiled in the Buckingham Rebellion of Autumn 1483. No hanging, drawering and quartering for her, far, far worse! She was sent to be looked after by her husband Lord Stanley and although not officially accused of treason Richard gave Stanley power of attorney over all her lands. What a bounder! Was there nothing Richard would not do!!!!
Sometimes SST I think I've lost the plot. Richard the merciless was...not! Surely he was not ruthless enough? I've not read Norton's Biography of which you write but will try and find it, I loved Jones and Uuderwood's, Stanley is a fascinating charcater. Where to begin? The Scottish Campaign and Berwick? But there was more before this. It seems as though the Stanley family had pretty much sewn up the lands of Cheshire and Lancashire (adding to the pot M. Beaufort's lands in the south and west after her fall from grace in 1483) but then there was the ongoing battle over the lands of the Harringtons and Holby Castle.
After Buckingham was executed Stanley was given his position of Chamberlain by Richard, not to be sniffed at! Does this mean that Richard was afraid of the Stanley's power? If so then why keep adding to it? However he stood firm on the matter of the Stanleys and Harringtons. It's a story worthy of "Lorna Doone" and too long to really go into here - you probably know all about it anyway - but Richard would not rule on thematter and handed it over to the Court system, even though James Harrington the younger would later die beside him at Bosworth and some say it was seeing James Harrington hurlting past them which was the deciding factor as to whether or not the Stanleys joined the fray against Richard.
I think we can reasonably access where Richard stood on useful and silly wars after his disgust at the Treaty of Picquiney. Berwick had been given to theScots by the Lancastrians, (sometimes it is so hard being un-Celtic and have you read Horrox's " A Study in Service" yet? ) it was pivotal to control of the North to regain it. I think we can all agree that Richard was a top-notch soldier and his men respected him as a leader. So to Stanley's part in this campaign. What I've studied here has been about the campaign and the Chivalric Code. I loathe battles but they must be done.
On the first campaign to re-capture Berwick, Stanley was present and complained that Richard had left him dangerously "exposed" during the assualt. There was a "sqaubble"? This did NOT happen again during the second campaign during which Berwick was captured for Edward IV. It seems to me that the Stanleys only faught when fully "re-enforced" unlike Richard. After this battle and Campaign Richard was richly rewarded by Edward - no one had profited so much for their bravery here in the north since Henry III's son, later Edward I, hence possibly Andrew Spencer's interest in the matter? Richard was given almost Palatinate powers for his sweeping victory during the Scottish Campaign by his grateful brother Edward.
This also gave him the right to enoble those who had helped in the field of battle and 49 knights and knights bannerets were made during the Scottish campaign including James Harrington and family member Charles Pilkington, (sworn enemies of the Stanleys) for "valour in the face of the enemy". They were predominantly "Northerners" who would later be hated by the "Southern Establishment". I'm afraid I've come across nothing about a standard nor do I know how many men the Stanleys committed to the campaign.
It has been suggested that due to Richard's power in Cumberland and the North it prevented the Stanleys from extending their "empire" from north Wales to the Scottish borders, the un-resolved land dispute with the Harringtons getting in the way as well. But surely the Percies of Northumberland met with the same problems Richard presented as Lord of the North? Whatever his detractors may say, Richard presented the northern retainers of these powerful dynasties access to justice and the freedom, to act as individuals rather than serfs or leigemen.
Obviously we can can see with hind-sight what would happen at Bosworth, there was nothing inexplicable about the battle lines which would be drawn as traditionalists like to pronounce. The North had been a problem to manage from the south since the time of William the Conqueror, leading to Henry VIII's Pilgramage of Grace and one could argue up to the Industrial Revolution, the Jarrow Marchers and even Margaret Thatcher's "miner's strike". The North-South Divide is growing today. It could well be argued that Richard III attempted to close this gap. The establishment of the south-east would not allow it. Look to Chroyland and the bias et al..M.F.. -
Message 30
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Monday, 3rd January 2011
Sorry several interruptions. Surely the main point is - why did Richard III as we have come to know and hate him - do so many odd and benevolent things? Why give a traitor, Margaret Beaufort (she was not alone in this benevolence), who had attempted to de-throne him after the Buckingham Rebellion, mere House Arrest, for a limited time and only confiscate her lands to be administered by her husband? Why not kill her? Surely any ordinary king would have done such a thing?
When Richard III "murdered" his old friend Hastings for plotting against him, why allow all the other "plotters" to go free? Lord Stanley was sent home, to be with his treacherous wife Margaret Beaufort for a few weeks, in disgrace, then came back to Court to resume his duties.
Let us ask a simple question, would Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary I or Elizabeth I have allowed this? What would Burleigh have to say about this form of forgiving conduct? This King was too far too gentle and yet he is known to all as our most "Blood-Thirsty King".
If only...Richard III had executed Margaret Beaufort and Lord Thomas Stanley he may have died at a ripe old age after uniting the North and South of England and having introduced such stupid things as justice and bail for rich and poor, laws against jury tampering and access to courts of law for all.
Of course this must bring into question that if Richard III spared the lives of those he knew had plotted against him, why would he have killed two young boys who posed no threat to him in any way. The Woodville Princes, in the Tower. An Act of Parliament had procalimed Richard to be king, a rebellion brought against him by the duke of Buckingham, traditionalists still insist was due to nation-wide disgust at this sin and crime, but it was literally "rained off" due to lack of interest or it seems lack of disgust.The people feared getting muddy more? Surely this lack of interest could not have been due to disbelief? It's an established sin to think this.
Was Richard III simply a stupid man? Traditional historians will have it so yet with a twist of simple wickedness. But why kill the Princes in the Tower and leave their cousin, the Earl of Warwick, with a better claim to the throne than you, alive?! Another oddity which traditionalists have yet to explain. These oddities and inconsistencies plague the life and times and even the aftermath of Richard III's life.
In brief, if the wicked Richard III had been more ruthless and killed more people he may have won the day and kept his throne. His inability to kill those who plotted against him, led to his death and destruction. To add to the confusion SST, I have come across this, in the Stanley Family papers about the death of the wicked Richard III;
"One foott will I never flee,
While the breath is my breast within.
Give me my battell axe in hand
And sett my crowne on my head so hye,
For Him that made both sea and land
King of England this day I will dye!"
The Stanley family appear to have admired Richard's last minutes on Earth as White Surrey was killed beneath him, offered other mounts Richard refused with his "henxmen" and faught on as the Stanley's scarlet clad private army slashed and slaughtered them. Purple prose!
I'd be so grateful if Richard's behaviour could be explained. I've been consigned to the vegitable patch for some time now SST. I would love to know what you think, as a rational being with no agenda and far more knowledge than you let on.
If you can't make an announcement then could you say what troubles you (or not!) in bite size pieces? Just a suggestion....Minette. -
Message 31
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
Dear SST
If I may be permitted to add my own take on the Stanleys and Richard to that of Minette, as ever you raise lots of interesting questions, the answers to which cannot be given with any certainty but are a key part of understanding the events of 1483 and Richard鈥檚 reign.
I鈥檒l try and answer your questions in turn. How powerful was Stanley?
The answer is very. The Stanleys emerged as the major noble family in Cheshire and Lancashire in the early fifteenth century, particularly under the auspices of Thomas Stanley鈥檚 father and grandfather. Cheshire and Lancashire were, of course, two royal palatinate counties and, after 1399 in particular, the king-duke-earl relied on the Stanleys to run the palatinate for them and the family emerged as the chief power and bastard feudal arbiters in the two counties. Despite their early adherence to the house of Lancaster, in the 1450s Thomas married the sister of Warwick the Kingmaker and thus became an adherent of the Yorkists, although in typical Stanley fashion he took his time in declaring openly for York, allowing his brother to act as a Yorkist openly while he maintained the fiction of his loyalty to Henry VI. Edward IV was somewhat sceptical of Stanley鈥檚 loyalty but he needed him in the north-west to maintain order and repress Lancastrian risings in Lancashire in the early 1460s.
Why did Richard not see through him earlier?
The two men were never on friendly terms. Richard, of course, is known for his domination of Yorkshire, Westmoreland and Cumberland in the 1470s but his first grant of land was a chunk of the duchy of Lancaster estates in Lancashire: an ill-considered move by Edward IV to try and promote his brother in the north west at the expense of Stanley power, and by extension Neville power to whom Stanley was closely allied. Inevitably Stanley and Richard soon clashed, over the wardship of the Harringtons of Hornby and over some duchy offices which Richard had been granted and which had previously been held by the Stanleys.
Sir Thomas Harrington was killed on the Yorkist side at Wakefield and the wardship of his two daughters eventually came into the hands of Lord Stanley who married them into his family. The girls鈥 uncles, however, James and Robert Harrington had seized control of the family鈥檚 lands, however, and refused to hand them over. Hornby Castle in Lancashire became the focus of the dispute and the Harrington brothers, in dispute with the major power in the county, turned to Richard, as the next most powerful landholder in Lancashire. The dispute dragged on until 1475 when, eventually, the Stanleys gained control of the inheritance. It was said that Richard himself had lead a force intent on bruning Lathom (a Stanley property) but was put to flight by the Stanleys at Ribble Bridge, losing his banner in the process which they displayed in Wigan church for 40 years. Whether that story has any truth to it is uncertain.
Just as important was the temporary loss of their duchy offices in Lancashire and these were eventually restored after 1471 when Edward IV realised that challenging Stanley power in the northwest was counter-productive. Following his restoration, Edward IV confirmed the Stanleys in the northwest and moved Richard to take over the Neville position in Yorkshire and the far northwest. Suspicion between Richard and Stanley remained and the Stanleys were, in effect, the only magnate dynasty in the north fully independent from Richard鈥檚 influence.
Why did Richard not move against Stanley in the autumn of 1483, after the Buckingham rebellion?
Richard needed Stanley to control the northwest. Richard was not stupid and knew that displacing established magnate families caused a great deal of disruption and created dangerous instability. Following the Buckingham rebellion, Richard was forced to change much of the established order in the south of England and a further reorganisation in the northwest would have been unwise and, Richard may have thought, unnecessary given the seeming completeness of his victory in 1483.
Vergil says that Richard spared Stanley in June, following the coup against Hastings, because he feared that Stanley鈥檚 son would have raised Cheshire and Lancashire against him. There may well have been some truth in this and Richard may well have decided that frightening Stanley was enough to achieve his purposes. A rising in the northwest would have been the last thing that Richard would have wished to deal with at this delicate point in his seizure of the throne. That Richard reconciled Stanley so quickly (he bore the mace at Richard鈥檚 coronation and remained as steward of the household) may further suggest that Richard never really believed that there was a plot against him and the coup was merely an excuse to rid himself of the irreconcilable Hastings.
I鈥檓 afraid I don鈥檛 know enough about Stanley鈥檚 part in the 1482 to comment on whether he was responsible for Berwick鈥檚 fall, but I would like to clarify my ideas about the campaign. Certainly the capture of Berwick was an important achievement and the final time the great town and fortress changed hands during the long period of Anglo-Scottish warfare and Edward IV celebrated the success accordingly and rewarded Richard for the achievement. The main aim of the campaign, however, was to replace the Scottish king, James III, with his brother the duke of Albany and this failed as, not for the first time, the Scots refused battle and their own internal politics dictated events more than the presence of the English. Richard鈥檚 army was forced to withdraw with Berwick being the sole reward for a vast expenditure.
Anyway, Happy New Year to you my friend and I hope this has gone someway to answering your query. Apologies for not answering sooner but have been away over the Christmas period.
All the best
Andrew
p.s. I only found out over Christmas to what your moniker refers while reading Helen Castor's excellent "She-Wolves": Edward VI's name for his sister Elizabeth! All these royal female nicknames on here, I feel very lowly!
-
Message 32
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 4th January 2011
Hi Andrew,
A very happy new year to you my friend!
Thank you for the explanation on Stanley.
I can't help asking you a few questions: Were there no other nobles except Lord Stanley and the Earl of Northumberland to assist Richard at Bosworth? How was it that in all of England, there were only two nobles to help Richard in this crucial battle?
Did Richard not give too much significance to the Battle, not summon other assistance, because he had a relatively low opinion of the Earl of Richmond on the field of battle? May be that is why he made that futile charge at Richmond.
Did Sir Thomas Stanley regard himself as under Lord Stanley, the elder brother, or was he acting completely on his own, in his treachery.
Tas -
Message 33
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
Dear Tas
Happy New Year to you also. To answer your questions: there were several other nobles supporting Richard at Bosworth. Principal among them, and commanding his vanguard, was the duke of Norfolk and his eldest son the earl of Surrey. Norfolk was killed but Surrey survived, although wounded, and went on to become a faithful servant of the Tudors, finally obtaining his father鈥檚 forfeited dukedom following his crushing defeat of the Scots at the battle of Flodden in 1513 capping a remarkable military career that had begun at Barnet, where he was again wounded, in 1471, 42 years before. Other lords who fought for Richard at Bosworth included his lifelong friend and companion Francis, Lord Lovell, who later died at the battle of Stoke in 1487, championing the cause of Lambert Simnell, as did John de la Pole, earl of Lincoln, Richard鈥檚 nephew, who was also at Bosworth.
In general, however, relatively few nobles fought on either side at Bosworth. There are two main reasons for this. First, there weren鈥檛 that many titled nobility left after the vicissitudes of the Wars of the Roses and the events of 1483. Second, many of those that remained decided that this was not their fight and waited on the sidelines to see who had won, an indication of the failure of the Ricardian regime to win enough acceptance from enough people. It was, perhaps, Richard鈥檚 knowledge of this that drove his determination to finish off Henry Tudor鈥檚 invasion quickly: a determination which may have driven him to offer battle before he needed to do so. That is speculation, of course, but had he waited a little longer he may have been able to bring more troops to bear against Tudor鈥檚 smallish invasion force: a force which had added relatively few extra men on its march through Wales and the midlands.
Sir Thomas Stanley was Lord Stanley, the elder brother. Sir William Stanley was his younger brother. The two men seemed to have acted very closely but not always identically. Sir William, as younger brother, had more freedom to act politically than Thomas so, for instance, it was William who first joined the Yorkist cause in the late 1450s while Thomas remained ostensibly loyal to the Lancastrians, although inactive in his loyalty. Similarly, in 1485, it was Sir William who seems to have provided active help to Tudor before the battle of Bosworth while his elder brother remained aloof and it was William who finally committed the Stanley contingent to the battle on Tudor鈥檚 side. Sir William鈥檚 treasonable conversations in 1493 with Robert Clifford about the claims of Perkin Warbeck to the throne, which led to his execution in 1495 may or may not have been conducted with the knowledge of his elder brother, but Lord Stanley鈥檚 (now earl of Derby) presiding over his brother鈥檚 trial again demonstrates Thomas鈥檚 ability to rise above danger. Plausible deniability we might call it these days!
All the best
Andrew -
Message 34
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
Dear Andrew and Minette,
I have just lost a great long post. I shall start again when I've had a stiff drink - of tea.
A fuming SST. -
Message 35
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
OK, let's try again.
Dear Andrew and Minette,
It was so good to see posts from you both - almost like the heady old days of the Elizabeth of York thread! A Happy New Year to you both, and to Tas, Gran and Cass too, of course. (Jap seems to have disappeared.)
Minette, old bean, your final paragraph about announcements (hatched, matched or dispatched?) has left me baffled, as has your reference to "bite sized pieces". Is this a subtle hint that I should submit more concise and logically structured posts? Please explain! And yes, I am troubled by Richard, but will return to that later. I must ask something about bastard feudalism first.
Andrew,
Many, many thanks for your excellent and detailed post - I found it enormously helpful. Alas, I despair when I contemplate my own ignorance: Minette is quite, quite wrong to suggest that I "know more than I let on". I know very little about the Stanleys.
Cheshire and Lancashire were, of course, two royal palatinate counties and, after 1399 in particular, the king-duke-earl relied on the Stanleys to run the palatinate for them and the family emerged as the chief power and bastard feudal arbiters in the two counties. 聽
Bastard feudal arbiters. I'm really glad you used that expression because feudalism and bastard feudalism are concepts I've been struggling with recently. I have had cause to reflect rather ruefully, Andrew, on something you said ages ago - how a real understanding of the events of 1483-5 is impossible without some grasp of how medieval society actually *worked*. A study of the realities of land ownership, power and government is essential, not just a facile attempt at analysis of the personalities (however fascinating) involved.
This bastard feudalism started with Edward I - I think? Or did payment for military service go back further? Ironically it caused so many problems during the Wars of the Roses: indeed was it one of *the* causes of that dispute? It was a system that worked if the king were strong (like the great Edwards, I, III and IV and like Henry IV and V), but an absolute disaster if the ruler proved to be a weakling - like Edward II, Richard II and Henry VI).What a balancing act it was - needing the great magnates and their paid retainers, yet needing also to have the strength and cunning to control them: to be able keep them all quiet, happy and, above all, on your side! So where does Richard fit in? Would he, as king, have eventually have established and maintained that control, or was he so disliked that trouble was inevitable? Was it just Richard's bad luck that one of the most powerful of the magnates - Thomas Stanley - just happened to be the stepfather of the Lancastrian claimant? (Incidentally could that marriage between the canny Margaret Beaufort and the mighty Stanley have been prevented? It was obviously a very dangerous liason for the House of York, or was Edward IV feeling far too optimistic in 1472 to concern himself with the man whom Margaret Beaufort selected as her fourth husband?)
And, going back to bastard feudalism - was good money management - economic savvy - also absolutely essential if a king were to survive -and flourish - under this system? I've been reading how - to my surprise - Edward IV was actually very canny with his cash: he made significant and very sensible innovations in royal revenue collection, supervising much of the work himself. And there was me thinking that our Edward was a fat, lazy spendhrift! Edward knew that it was *insolvency* in his first reign that had weaked his hold on the throne and left him so vulnerable. Was that true of Richard? Edward had left the monarchy solvent in 1483, so how come Richard was in such a financial mess in 1484?
And how did Henry VII manage so effectively to castrate - financially - the nobles? I understand the *means* by which he did it - the bonds and the recognisances - but how on earth did he get away with it? Legal cunning rather than military might? Not so much masters and men as royal master and royal *lawyers*?
SST.
PS Must get Helen Castor's book. I enjoyed "Blood and Roses". (I hope Sweet Sister Temperance was not included in the list of she-wolves!)
You could always call yourself Hammer of the Ricardians, Andrew. -
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
Temperance
Happy New Year-- Toasted in tea!
Regarding payment for military service- or rather in lieu of- really became a popular option during the Angevin period..Perhaps people were just happy that things settled down a bit after the period of Stephen and Matilda, and no doubt this was accentuated by the urge to retire to the country and the life of the country elite that has been such a theme of English history. But keeping yourself military fit, and in charge of a fighting unit of the required size obviously had its costs and burdens, and I tend to think that there are many parts of England's green and pleasant land that make people feel that there are better things to do with their time other than fighting wars (or studying them)
It was no doubt also significant that Henry of Anjou and Eleanor of Aquitaine had roots in a France in which the hiring of mercenaries to do the fighting had become an accepted practice. The attrocity committed by mercenaries when Eleanor's beautiful sister, Petronella, eloped with someone other than the French prince to whom she was engaged resulted in Eleanor's then husband, the King of France, undertaking the Second Crusade as an act of pennance.
But for Henry with his "Angevin Empire" there were clearly advantages in collecting "shield money" from barons who did not want to go to fight in "foreign" wars, and only having to transport the money rather than whole armies overseas, where he could find "professional guns for hire".
The subsequent importance of good book-keeping was noted by King John, and the English Treasury is accepted as having made significant improvements under John, hence much of the unpopularity. And the whole question of military service and paying came to a head in the Baron's Revolt leading up to Magna Carta, for the Barons argued that their duty- either to fight or to pay- was in order to defend England itself; and not all of the personal titles of the King of England in foreign parts.
Hence the long-standing tradition that Tony Blair had difficulty in applying to the war in Iraq that the English people only fight wars to defend themselves.
Best wishes
Cass -
Message 37
Posted by Gran (U14388334) on Wednesday, 5th January 2011
Hi Temp and Cass,
New Year greetings all round, I am still ploughing through my Xmas reading, Alison Weir's "The Captive Queen" I am up to where Henry II made his son's fiance pregnant, what a character! Anyway back to RIII and I suspect many more generations will be discussing him, until maybe they use DNA to find those bodies. (Richard's and the boy's) I have Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard III " on order but suspect it will be a little dry. Never mind I will work my way through it.
All the Best to all
Gran
PS Teas all round, on the house!! -
Message 38
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
eudalism but it is my area of study so I鈥檒l do my best.
One major problem with both feudalism and bastard feudalism is that they aren鈥檛 contemporary terms at all, but ones created by historians to try and explain the way society worked. As with any invented concept there is a great deal of dispute about what is actually meant by the two terms.
Bastard feudalism was coined in the late nineteenth century by a historian called Charles Plummer. As the name implies, he intended it as a pejorative: it was a corruption of the feudal relationship of land grants by the introduction of cash grants by lords to obtain service. Plummer saw bastard feudalism as the prime cause of the Wars of the Roses, as so-called 鈥榦ver-mighty鈥 subjects, with dozens of retainers at their back, were able to defy royal authority with impunity and clashed with each other disturbing the peace of the kingdom.
In the middle of the twentieth century, the phrase was rescued from ignominy by Kenneth Bruce McFarlane, probably the greatest historian of the late middle ages, who revolutionised the historiography of the 14th and 15th centuries. McFarlane argued that we should retain the phrase but use the word 鈥榖astard鈥 to mean 鈥榙ifferent but resembling鈥 rather than 鈥榗orrupted鈥. He was the first historian to argue that the crown and the nobility were not in eternal conflict but actually were mostly in harmony with each other and he placed the blame for the Wars of the Roses not on 鈥榦ver-mighty鈥 subjects but on the failings of individual kings, particularly Richard II and Henry VI. Far from being a corrupting influence, bastard feudalism was part of the normal fabric of society.
An additional complication is that bastard feudalism has two distinct definitions. The first is a technical one which describes the nature of the way lord obtained service, moving from the land grants of feudalism to the cash grants of bastard feudalism. The second term is a broader one, which describes society as a whole. Essentially, a bastard feudal society is one where the nobility act as the gate-keepers between the centre and the locality.
Within his 鈥榗ountry鈥 (a contemporary term) a magnate would retain a portion of the local gentry who, through their own horizontal links with other gentry, would help to extend their lord鈥檚 influence well beyond his immediate retainers. The lord would ensure that his retainers held the crucial administrative and legal local offices of sheriff and justices of the peace which meant that he could protect and promote his own interests and those of his affinity but also, crucially, promote royal authority and the king鈥檚 peace in an age when there was no permanent police force.
A balance had to be struck between crown and nobility. No nobleman could hope to exercise really effective bastard feudal control without at least tacit support from king, but equally the king was usually expected to work within existing landholding patterns and problems often emerged when the king tried to promote 鈥榥ew men鈥 at the expense of established families, as for example happened under Richard II in the 1390s.
As to when bastard feudalism emerged, that is the subject of my own research. Some historians have argued that it developed between 1180 and 1220 as a result of the introduction of the common law in Henry II鈥檚 reign which undermined traditional feudal courts and forced lords to look outside feudal relationships for service. My own thoughts are that lords certainly began to obtain service from outside feudal tenants in the twelfth century but that they were not using the techniques of bastard feudalism to exercise power at a local level until probably the latter half of Edward III鈥檚 reign.
Whatever the truth may be, bastard feudalism reached its apogee under Edward IV as he effectively split the country up into regions, each controlled by a trusted nobleman: Richard in Yorkshire and the far north-west; Hastings in the North Midlands; the Woodvilles in Wales and East Anglia; Stanley in Lancashire and Cheshire. One of the problems Edward stored up, however, was that he largely promoted 鈥榥ew men鈥, often at the expense of what remained of the traditional nobility which left several noble families disaffected and in a position to be exploited by a man offering change: men like Buckingham who had been excluded in the midlands in favour of Hastings; Howard, excluded in East Anglia in favour of the Woodvilles; Northumberland overshadowed by Richard in the north.
Anyway, that鈥檚 a brief technical discussion of bastard feudalism, I鈥檒l try and answer your questions about money management and how Richard fits in to it all in my next posts.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 39
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Sorry about the beginning of my post, was cutting and pasting from a word document! Here is the missing part:
Dear Temperance
Thanks for your post, I鈥檓 really glad you found it useful and as always you underestimate yourself. I鈥檓 afraid I鈥檝e opened a real can of worms with my mention of bastard feudalism but it is my area of study so I鈥檒l do my best. -
Message 40
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Andrew
Happy New Year
Thanks for that.. It rather confirmed my feeling that there was a change over from the policy of the Anglo-Normans who distributed feudal tenures in such a way as to keep everyone's focus on the Royal Court rather than regional power bases (which could be said to have contributed to the weakness of the English in 1066).
Following my previous points about the roots of the English country gentleman, there was that process of engrossment and enclosure by which the feudal lords withdrew their entitlement from the common lands and created their own separate demesne lands which could be exploited by them or rented out. And it seems that, with economic development and the emergence of the beginnings of a market economy (highlighted by the crisis after the Black Death and its impact on prices, wages and Labour mobility), there were particular advantages to the country and to the baronial families in creating a solid power base centred in one place.
Minette has often made this point about the standing of Richard III in Yorkshire and parts of the North; and Warwick castle is a famous example of the transition from true castle to private mansion.
As far as the common people were concerned a popular piece of farming wisdom in a Tudor book stated that "The best dung for ground is the master's foot."
Cass -
Message 41
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Part II
The importance of money. A successful king needed access to regular supplies of money, either through parliamentary grants of customs duties, parliamentary grants of taxes on movable goods or through loans with foreign merchants. It was access to money rather than actual wealth which was most important. Edward I and Edward III for example were both in heavy debt to foreign bankers but were still able to obtain credit and therefore able to continue fighting their wars. On the other hand, Edward II, having been plagued by money trouble for much of his reign, was hugely wealthy by the time he was deposed but all that money wasn鈥檛 able to save him. To use an old clich茅: the size of your fortune didn鈥檛 matter so much when you were king, it was what you did with it that counted!
Edward IV was indeed a very careful accumulator of money, in contrast to his carefree image, and one of the reasons the Crowland Chronicler was so critical of the Scottish campaign in 1482 was that it cost so much money for what he regarded as very little result. That was his perspective as a southerner of course: northerners may well have regarded the capture of Berwick, and through it better securing the north-east border, as worth the cost. The cost of the 1482 campaign largely exhausted Edward鈥檚 reserves of cash and may have contributed in part to Richard III鈥檚 financial problems. I鈥檓 afraid I don鈥檛 know enough about it to comment further.
Turning to Richard III and bastard feudalism, Richard was, of course, a very successful bastard feudal magnate but he clearly found the transition from magnate to monarch very difficult, something which was hardly surprising as they demanded very different skills. A key part of being a bastard feudal magnate meant protecting and rewarding your own supporters to the exclusion, if necessary, of their rivals. Being king meant being seen as impartial: being able to rise above politics to provide justice.
Richard started off quite well, seeking to conciliate members of the old regime (men like Stanley and others of Edward IV鈥檚 household) as well as bringing those, like Howard and Buckingham, who had been largely excluded by Edward IV. Following Buckingham鈥檚 rebellion, however, Richard began to turn back to those men he knew and with whom he felt comfortable. Thus northerners whom he knew from his time as duke of Gloucester were promoted and placed in positions of responsibility in the south, making the classic mistake of promoting 鈥榥ew men鈥 at the expense of traditional patterns of local power.
The problem with the Stanleys was that, unusually, Richard as king needed them more than they needed him: but this was not an 鈥榦ver-mighty鈥 subject but an 鈥榰nder-mighty鈥 king. The nature of his usurpation and then the Buckingham rebellion, although crushed with relative ease, left Richard dangerously exposed even at the moment of his greatest triumph. Having disturbed the peace of the kingdom so much by he usurpation and then by the upheavals to local power after the Buckingham rebellion, Richard could not afford to create more disturbance in another part of the country, the north-west, which had, thanks to Stanley influence remained quiet in 1483.
As for the Stanley marriage to Margaret Beaufort, we have to remember that in 1472 nobody in their right mind thought that the Lancastrian claim had any chance of success. Henry Tudor鈥檚 royal blood ran very thinly through his veins and the main Lancastrian claimants, Henry VI and Edward of Lancaster, were both dead. By contrast, Edward IV had two male children and two healthy adult brothers. The Yorkists were in full bloom while the Lancastrians had withered on the vine: no-one imagined that the Stanley-Beaufort marriage would prove to be a major threat to the Yorkists. It is worth remembering also that, important as the Stanleys became, they were, in 1472, very much still in the second rank of the nobility: had Margaret Beaufort married, say, Buckingham, the marriage might have been seen as more of a threat (not that Edward IV would ever have allowed such a match).
As for Henry VII, I am afraid we are moving outside my knowledge but from what I understand I think Henry鈥檚 reign is being seen in a much more traditional late-medieval way rather than as a decisive break with the past. Henry, too, relied on magnate power to support his regime in certain places: Stanley in the North-West, Courtenay in the South-West, Oxford in East Anglia.
Anyway, I hope this is useful in some way and not too detailed and obscure for a popular history board.
All the best
Andrew
p.s. Castor's book is well-worth buying, full of very good stuff so far. The premise is female royal power before Elizabeth so I don't think your namesake makes the list as a she-wolf!
p.p.s. Hammer of the Ricardians sounds far too violent, though I appreciate the Edward I reference. I don't want to destroy Ricardians, only convert them! -
Message 42
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Hi Andrew, Temperance, Minette, Cass,
i have been reading all your messages and I think I am a little confused, because I do not know enough about the middle ages and feudalism. Perhaps one of you can explain to me how feudalism worked.
At the moment, I am assuming that it started with a knight or baron, who had a plot of land, perhaps a village or two and a tower, and it was his responsibility to guard that tower and that land against an enemy. He was the Lord of that little territory. He was the law and everything in his little area. He was in turn bound by oath to a liege Lord to whom he owed allegiance. and thus it went up the ladder through Earls, Dukes and finally the King. I am basing this on a film I saw a long time ago called 'The Warlord', a film depicting the medieval ages.
So if the king wanted to raise an army, whether to fight an internal enemy, or an external foe, he could not go directly to the people to raise an army; he had to go to one of these top-level Lords, such as Norfolk, Stanley, Northumberland, Hastings. The soldiers owed their first allegiance to the Lord from whose land they came and through him to the King. That is why Sir William Stanley was able to make his soldiers turn against their King.
I am comparing this to the 16th and 17th century India, in which the Mughal Emperor created a number of nobles, with the rank of 10,000 or 5,000 or 1,000 and that noble was expected to field that many men for the Emperor. To provide for all those men, the Emperor provided a certain amount of land.
How did the feudal system work in Britain and in particular in England?
Thanks,
Tas -
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Tas
In many ways the situation was almost a system in Anglo-Norman England, particularly after the revolt c1068 which made sure that the pre-Conquest elite was totally replaced by people immediately loyal to the King. The King gave the use and responsibility for large amounts of land to Tenants-in-Chief, who were expected to have their own military resources capable of defending their territories, usually with the King's permission/requirement to build and man castles at important places. Of course it helped that in many cases these were the adventurers who had brought military units to join in William's successful invasion.
Because the Tenants in Chief had lands scattered all over England, they delegated in turn to under-tenants who were the leaders of smaller military units, and often custodians of castles. As such they and the Tenants in Chief had those crucial warriors the mounted Knights, who were often given the Lordship of a number of manors according to their rank, fame and reputation. The manor was often a village, but it was defined as a place for the collection of the King's dues and revenues.
But in addition to local administration and defence the Knights, lesser barons, and Tenants in Chief were also all elements in the armies of the King, and as such were required to assemble wholly or representatively at chosen "Crown Wearing" festivals of the year. In peace time these assemblies were the occasion of testing and proving the military capability of the various Knights and their leaders in great tournaments.
Where I would take issue with your description was what you say about "the law"..
Burdens, duties, rights, responsibilities and competences were well established by the end of the Anglo-Saxon period. William I, like every English monarch since, swore the Coronation Oath of Edward the Confessor, who had grown up in Normandy, in which Edward swore to be bound by the laws and traditions of the English monarchy. And, as was emphasised by Magna Carta, the whole system worked because each layer of society had its laws and traditions that it could call upon before its superiors- even the King who could appeal to God.
Hence the representatives of the peasantry could tell a Norman Lord of the Manor, who had new ideas about how the manor would be run in future, that this might be contrary to the "Custom of the Manor". And there were ways to make sure that an over-bearing Lord failed to make his village thrive and produce the crops that his own overlord expected. In any case the basis of English Common Law has always been that what is customary is legal- unless changed by legislation.
I must have quoted before the "minute" written by a servant of the East India Company called Munro c1824 in which he commented that there was no point in making laws to protect the Indian 'ryots' (poor peasants) because they lacked the Englishman's knowledge of , and experience of, knowing how to make use of their rights before the law, and in the face of an oppressive superior.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 6th January 2011
Thanks for that Cass. I understand a little better.
Muro was one of the best of the English who came to administer India. I have also quoted him on this board somewhere.
Tas -
Message 45
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Dear Andrew,
Just seen your messages - many thanks for taking the time and trouble to reply in such detail.
I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment, but hopefully will be back to ask something about your comments in the third paragraph of Part II of your reply - about Richard and the importance of being seen as impartial - "being able to rise above politics to provide justice".
Surely Richard had proved (during his time in the North) that he was determined to do just this? Were the great Lords wary that he could well turn out to be a little bit *too* keen on providing justice for all? Wasn't one of the problems associated with bastard feudalism the abuse of the legal system by the magnates who often used their retained men to bring unlawful - bullying - influence on others in court cases - controlled juries etc.? Wasn't this the "maintenance" that, ironically, Henry VII was also determined to stamp out?
In haste,
SST. -
Message 46
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Dear Temperance
Thanks for your message. If I may, I will slightly pre-empt your further question. Richard was a very successful bastard feudal lord but the 鈥済ood lordship鈥 [a contemporary term] provided a bastard feudal lord was not the same as the lordship and justice provided by the king.
Richard fulfilled the task set for him by Edward IV in the North with great success: that is to keep the peace in the North and to reconcile the North to Yorkist rule. Richard did this by making his lordship very far reaching across the North, meaning that people sought his lordship out for their own protection and advancement.
Let us take the city of York for an example. People often quote the lament on Richard鈥檚 death by the city authorities of York 鈥減iteously slain and murdered etc.鈥 as evidence that Richard was loved in the North. It is, of course, no such thing. What it is, however, is evidence that Richard was loved and revered by the city of York and they had good reason to mourn him as he had been a good lord to them during his time as Lord of the North. The relationship between Richard and the city of York was a classic bastard feudal one of mutual benefit. In 1475 the city was sending him and his servants presents and in 1476 Richard intervened with the king to ensure that the city could freely elect a new common clerk when the old one, who had been dismissed, appealed to the earl of Northumberland to help him be reinstated. Later, Richard persuaded the king not to withdraw the city鈥檚 liberties and was rewarded by them with a present of swans and pike when he visited York at Christmas. In 1477 Richard and his wife became members of the city guild of Corpus Christi, a further sign of his patronage, and he assisted the city in its age-old attempts to clear the Yorkshire rivers of fishgarths which damaged the city鈥檚 access to fish. In 1481, the city sent Richard 120 archers for a punitive expedition against the Scots in return for a remission of taxation. The duke and the city even exchanged wanted felons who had attempted to take refuge with the one from the other. Evenautally, of course, the city backed Richard strongly when he seized the throne: we should expect nothing less given Richard鈥檚 patronage of the city during the previous decade. This evidence allows us to put the comment of 1485 into perspective: of course York was devastated by the death of Richard III, it had lost its good lord.
Like any bastard feudal lord, Richard鈥檚 rule in the North proved good for those who were his retainers and clients. For those who weren鈥檛, they mostly towed the line as Richard was clearly the arbiter of royal authority, and for those who came into conflict with Richard鈥檚 lordship, well it was tough luck for them.
Again, like any successful bastard feudal lord, Richard was jealous for his own interests and was not willing to let 鈥榡ustice鈥 stand in the way of them. However, it was this very characteristic, and his inability to rise above it, which demonstrated that he could not make the transition from magnate to king.
As I have said before, the issue of the protectorship demonstrates this perfectly. It is likely, though not certain, that Edward IV did indeed appoint Richard as Edward V鈥檚 protector in the codicil to his will. In Richard鈥檚 absence, the council set this provision aside (as it was perfectly entitled legally to do) and instead decided to appoint Richard as head of the council but not as protector. Had Richard been able to see beyond his own interests then he would have grudgingly accepted the council鈥檚 decision and knuckled down to the job of heading the council during Edward V鈥檚 relatively brief minority. Instead, like the classic bastard feudal lord he was, he was determined to enforce his rights no matter what the consequences might be, and they proved, of course, to be disastrous. The good of the kingdom demanded that everyone have a stake in the governing of England during the minority for if everyone had a stake then all were responsible: the good of Richard of Gloucester demanded that he obtain the protectorship for his own advancement and that of his family and followers. It was the good of Richard that won out.
I don鈥檛 say all this about bastard feudalism and the events of 1483 to say that Richard was somehow uniquely bad or corrupt, he wasn鈥檛 and others (notably Hastings and Buckingham) made the same mistake as Richard in 1483 in seeking to promote their own interests above those of the realm.
The techniques necessary to be a successful impartial king were very different from those of being a successful bastard feudal lord. A bastard feudal lord could promote peace in his 鈥榗ountry鈥 principally by being partial, partial to himself and his followers. This was something Richard managed brilliantly. A king had, as far as possible, to be seen as impartial.
All the best
Andrew -
Message 47
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 7th January 2011
Dear Andrew,
Thanks again. Lord, you do know your stuff, don't you? One is wobbling badly. Will get back to you when I've recovered a bit.
Dear Cass,
I was in a mad rush before and I did not thank you for your post. Thank you!
Dear Gran,
I hope you enjoy Paul Murray Kendall's book - I certainly did. It's superbly researched and written, but is scoffed at by many historians. Alas, the man is far, far too emotional! (He was actually a Professor of English, not a historian at all, so he is therefore NOT to be trusted!)
Must dash. Quiz night at the pub!
SST. -
Message 48
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 8th January 2011
I'm not sure to whom I should address this and am only posting breifly, not having intended to, so please bear with me.
I've enjoyed the discussion about "bastard feudalism" (although I've had posts pulled for using this term in a legitimate sense!) and would like to make some minor points. You have often said Andrew, that this or that is not your area of interest or expertise, it's really interesting to know what you are working on. A point to be made about the "contemporary use of country" in the "middle ages", as in, what we would now call area of influence or county, Jane Austen often writes of, for example, about the number of people someone may dine with in the "country" meaning county. This cannot surely be used as a "contemporary term"? A minor point as I've said.
I've yet to be convinced that the Norman imposed concept of Feudalism, be it in a watered down form of bastardisation or not, was a good idea. Surely no man can actually "own" another? It was nasty and brutish and the Saxons seem to have managed extremely well with their "hundreds". However given the facts and laws of the day we can all accept existed, you write, "it promoted royal authority and the king's peace in an age when there was no permanent police force". Possibly so and then you state at length what Richard of Gloucester and later as king, actually did for the people of York. And yet, for those who "toed the line" it was good and for this who did not, "it was tough luck for them". Wouldn't this simply be intereprreted as keeping the peace for any other "magnate"?
You go onto say, "like any successful feaudal lord, Richard was jealous for his own interests and was not willing to let "justice" stand in the way of them. However, it was very charcteristic and his inability to rise above it, which demonstrated that he could not make the transition form magnate to king". Could you please elaborate? You list some of the good laws and traditions Richard gave to York and then speak darkly of not allowing "justice" to get in his way. Of what do you speak? Please give an example and I fail to see how you have made the leap between Richard being a good magnate yet a poor king. Rise above what? Parochiolisim? I don't beleieve that it has ever been levelled against Edward I that he was a bad king because his power base was in the south east; but then what does the Westminster Village of today truly know about the anything far beyond the M25? Tis the custom to cling to the south east, anything else would be odd...
You have also made some other sweeping assumptions/statements. In post 31 you quote Vergil and announce that Richard never really believed that there was a plot against him and the coup was merely an excuse to rid himself of the irreconcilable Hastings. How do you know this? And are you saying that Hastings would go along with anything but...The death of the Princes? What made him "irreconcilable"? And to what? The sainted Hastings had vast land portfolios, once admisntered by William Catesby, who was the main beneficiary of Hasting's death.
On the matter of land holdings you stated when talking of bastard feuadalism that lands were held by certain families which were not. For example Wales was certainly not in the thrall to the Woodvilles, far from it. The Stanleys had estates in the north, the duke of Buckingham from Brecknock adminsitered esates in mid Wales and parts of Glamorgan but the powerful Herbert family ruled vast estates from Raglan Castle where Henry Tudor spent some years as a ward of this Yorkist family.
As for Bosworth, you have argued that Richard lost the battle for several reasons. After two years and two months he had still not consolidated his reign. Many people did not bother to turn up at the battle due to war-weariness, Richard knew his position to be weak so he speeded up his attack on Henry Tudor personally. Which or all? Incidentally it is still unclear whether or not Francis Lord Lovell died at Stoke, many believe he escaped and died later at Colchester.
Logically and with equal historical veracity it could be argued that no one or very few - including the Stanley brothers - actually believed that Henry Tudor posed much of a threat to Richard. Since the Autumn of 1483 there had been little opposition to Richard's reign. In itself unusual for a usurper and murderer of young princes. When it was known that Tudor had landed Dale near Milford Haven and was making his way towards England Richard and his inner most circle showed no signs of panic. An atack form what was left of the Lancastrians was
to be expected.
It was suggested that the "big guns" from the Tower's arsenal should be taken with Richard to meet Tudor but he thought them to be unnessary. Later this would of course turn out to be Richard's biggest mistake. This we know. We also know that few believed that Tudor would win the day. Of this there is no doubt. Tudor collected far fewer men than he had hoped to on his march towards the English midlands, even the Welsh did not support him as thought. Northumberland's inaction would not only have dire consequences for Richard but later for himself. The Stanley's action would literally proove to be a double-edged sword, the near exile of one brother and the death of the other. Tudor would never underestimate any "minor" incurssions, leading to the bloody battle of Stoke. It is hard to reconcile how many men died fighting at the "minor" up-rising or Battle of Stoke, against the insignicant Tudor who had killed the un-popular Richard III.
When you say that Richard had to be seen as "impartial" what do you mean? That he had the timerity to use trusted men from the NORTH to be in his adminsistration? Do we still have the "Watford Gap" problem almost 600 years on? Apart from the documentary evidence we still have that Edward IV intended Richard to be Protector when he died; apart from the fact that when a king has died young leaving a young king behind him, the oldest brother of the former king has traditionally been Protector; apart from the fact that the enormous elephant in the room, that is that the Woodville Princes were declared illegitimate by Parliament, has been over-looked by you; you will continue
to judge Richard's motive to be king as simply that of unsatiable greed and corruption. Why?
You cannot compare Hastings or Buckingham with Richard. Hastings was an ageing soldier, a new baron with a large land port-folio and ideas of grandeur and a hatred of Buckingham. Who although a royal duke was an outsider who knew nothing of battles and dabbled in politics. Richard was a royal duke with an impeccable service record to his brother the king, a renowned soldier with a reputation for good government.
If kings have to be impartial then why not Historians? If Richard does something good, he is hiding something or has ulterior motives. If he does something bad, he is showing his true colours. I'm being simplistic but why not simply weigh up the evidence? Personally I'd like to see an appraisal of who made the best marriages, who was related to whom and how and more discussion of concepts and ideas concerning this period. Slinging mud thinly veiled in "knowledge" which has been floating around for eons gets us no where. Don't you agree? -
Message 49
Posted by greatnovak (U13923414) on Sunday, 9th January 2011
To me the execution of Hastings is deeply symbolic as it shows that Richard had to get rid of one of the House of Yorks greatest supporter in order to take over the throne .
-
Message 50
Posted by Andrew Spencer (U1875271) on Monday, 10th January 2011
Dear Minette
I will try and keep this short as I have said before that I don鈥檛 want to get into another debate with you about Richard as we both have our own viewpoints that seem unlikely to change.
鈥楥ountry鈥 meaning locality or area of influence was indeed a contemporary medieval term: that Jane Austen used it is is surely irrelevant as to whether it was used in the middle ages?
You are right that as historians we have a duty to be impartial and I do my best to be so towards Richard. Because of the nature of the debate over Richard III鈥檚 actions and reign, however, it is very hard to be seen as impartial: the legacy of Shakespeare and, ore recently, die-hard romantic Ricardians is distinctly unhelpful for those who wish to approach the period dispassionately as decide as best they can what really happened and why.
As I have said many times, Richard was a very successful bastard feudal lord: the tactics he used in the North were classically bastard feudal which, when successful, meant that there would be peace in his 鈥榗ountry鈥 but also that there would be winners and losers. Among the losers at Richard鈥檚 hands included his own mother-in-law, the countess of Oxford, George Neville, and the Hungerfords.
This is not a criticism of Richard: he did what all bastard feudal lords did, protect his own interests and those of his followers in order to promote his rule and the king鈥檚 peace. Richard鈥檚 actions between 1471 and 1483 should be seen as entirely normal: neither as evidence of unique wickedness nor as evidence of unique virtue. It was his failure to change his mindset in 1483 from bastard feudal lord to vicar of royal power that caused such a disaster.
Contrary to what you say, it was not established practice for the eldest surviving paternal uncle of an under-aged king to become protector, at least not in the sense that Richard became protector in May 1483. Both John of Gaunt and Humphrey of Gloucester during the minorities of Richard II and Henry VI effectively took on the role which the Council offered Richard in 1483: that of head of the council.
Also, parliament did not declare the king and his younger brother illegitimate until January 1484, and under duress according to Crowland, more than six months after Richard seized the throne. You call this the 鈥渆normous elephant in the room鈥. Parliament鈥檚 pronouncement was irrelevant to taking the throne, all it did was confirm what had already happened. In June 1483, the elephant was rather tardy and still a long way from the room.
Finally, Edward I鈥檚 powerbase was not in the south-east, it was the whole country. During his reign he spent time in every county except Cornwall and his authority was able to reach all parts of his kingdom. Bastard feudalism, where royal power was channelled to the localities through the nobility, had not developed in Edward I鈥檚 reign and, partly because late-medieval royal administration and law which enabled bastard feudalism had not emerged, royal authority was unadulterated.
All the best
Andrew
Dear greatnovak
I agree entirely. The sundering of the Yorkist regime was tragically symbolic and unnecessary and led directly to Tudor鈥檚 victory.
All the best
Andrew
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.