Category: June

Anthony Woodville: Adds to his Will

23/6/2017

On the 23rd June, two days before his execution, Anthony Woodville, Earl Rivers added the following to his will.

“My will is now to be buried before an Image of our blissid Lady Mary, with my lord Richard, in Pomfrete.”

Records of 1483 show that Richard III’s receiver allowed the sum of 46s. 4d for the expense of burying Richard Grey, Rivers nephew.

King Richard himself, if you remember, would suffer a similar fate two years later.

0 Comments

Bastard Slips Shall Not Take Root

21/6/2017

0 Comments

Sunday, 22nd June 1483 was the date originally set for Edward V’s coronation. Ralph Shaa preached at St Paul’s Cross on the theme that

“bastard slips shall not take root”.

Visual Model of St Paul's Cross constructed by Joshua Stephens, rendered by Jordan Gray

I found the following among my paper on Richard III. I don't know who wrote it (I am sure it wasn't me) but it's rather brilliant.

"Last night I dreamt that I was directing a Hollywood movie about Richard’s life, starring George Peppard. We were shooting one of my favourite scenes. The one where our hero emerges from the throng, walks towards the camera, winks conspiratorially to the viewers, smiles knowingly, chomps on his nine inch Havana and utters that immortal line “I love it when a plan comes together. ”

It seems that, as usual, the ‘A-Team’s ’plan was working perfectly. The bad guys had been outwitted effortlessly; all that was needed now was for Richard to be crowned and to live happily ever after. When I awoke from my cheerful slumbers, it was to the grim reality of history.

This Sunday in 1483 was a pivotal moment in Richard’s life and in English history. Things would never be the same again for him or the realm.

On Sunday 22 June 1483, Dr Ralph Shaa addressed a gathering of good and the great at St Paul's Cross to hear his sermon. His chosen theme was both controversial and regime changing: ‘Bastard slips shall not take root’. St Paul’s Cross was the usual venue for important official announcements, and they don’t come much more important that this one. We can be sure that Dr Shaa was acting on Richard’s behalf. His purpose was to put forward Richards claim to the crown. Given the importance of the occasion it is particularly disappointing that we don’t have any documentary evidence, or an eyewitness account of what the learned doctor actually said. Notwithstanding their proclivity for reporting every piece of royal tittle-tattle, the near-contemporary chronicles’ are unable to give a first-hand account of this meeting. All we have are the second-hand accounts of Mancini, More and Vergil et al. The problem with these is that they are hearsay and in Mancini’s case we are not even sure he understood what he was told. The Tudor writers such as More and Vergil were even further removed from these events and cannot be trusted to be objective.

The controversy that has arisen concerns Richard’s true title to the crown. Mancini and Vergil maintain that his claim was on the basis of his brother’s bastardy. There is no mention of the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler being alleged at this meeting. The Great Chronicler declared the Richard’s claim was due to the fact that Edward’s children “were not the rightful inheritors of the crown” and that Edward was illegitimate. Croyland is quite clear: Richard alleged that a pre-contract between his brother and Eleanor Butler disqualified Edward’s children from succeeding to the crown. It is difficult at this distance of time and in the absence of reliable reports to be sure exactly what was said. However, on the balance of probabilities I personally believe that the pre-contract was raised at this meeting. It seems inconceivable to me that Richard would not base his claim to the throne on it at this meeting. It was a problem he had agonised over for two weeks, he had executed a former comrade in arms because of it and he had prepared for it. Why would he not put it forward as a reason now? (NB: To mention the subsequent role of Parliament and Titular Regius now is to anticipate the future, which I want to avoid doing.)

The allegation of Edward’s illegitimacy is an old one. However, it is not an issue that Richard had ever raised before; indeed, we don’t even know that he believed the rumours. For me to accept that this was his only grounds for assuming the crown, would be to acknowledge that he did indeed usurp the crown. Richard’s reaction to the Woodville coup in April, his actions as Lord Protector during May and early June are not indicative of a man intent on usurping the crown. In fact, his actions support the opposite: Richard intended to see his young nephew crowned as king by right of succession. He had behaved impeccably according to the law."

NB If I ever find out who did write this I will most certainly give you a slap on the back and place your name here.

0 Comments

The Execution of William Hastings

13/6/2017

0 Comments

On this day in 1483, William Hastings attended a council meeting at the Tower of London where he was accused of treason by Richard, Duke of Gloucester and later beheaded.

So, did Richard execute Hastings without trial?

Here's what author Annette Carson thinks -

"First let me run through the factual circumstances of the incident itself. We’ve had far too much smoke and mirrors already. Forget Tudor stories of witchcraft and withered arms; forget the small-talk of strawberries suddenly transmogrified into murderous fury; forget convenient self-incrimination provided by go-betweens. Colourful as these devices are, any creative writer will recognize them as classic misdirection. They’re calculated to distract from the pretence at the heart of the Tudor fabrication: that a Protector of the Realm, a mere five weeks into his appointment, could get away with unprovoked daylight murder of a peer in the middle of London, in front of witnesses, and still retain the complete confidence of the King’s Council and the Three Estates of Parliament who then collectively elected him King of England."

I've never got my head around the events of this council meeting or William Hasting's eventually fate. As a Ricardian, I would like to think that Richard had no hand in Hastings death, but we cannot place him on a pedestal and think that he was beyond reproach, that does more harm than good. What we should look at is the situation from Richard's point of view and consider what was going on at this point in time. We should also bear in mind that this was a time when those who lived by the sword, died by the sword.

Sadly, I'm afraid to say that, in my case, the jury is still out on this.

History uses this event to vilify Richard, as do those in the art world, and no better example of this is the above painting by Victorian artist Sir John Gilbert.

You can read a little more about Gilbert's painting in my blog on my website.

meanderingthroughtime.weebly.com/history-blog/the-arrest-of-lord-hastings-by-john-gilbert

0 Comments

Death of William Ayscough

29/6/2016

0 Comments

As chaos engulfed the streets of London in the summer of 1450, William Ayscough, Bishop of Salisbury was a frightened man, most probably believing that the mob who had plotted his death at the beginning of the year would now put their plans into action.

The death in the February of Adam Moleyns, murdered on a beach at Portsmouth and the murder three months later of William de la Pole off the coast at Dover must have playing on Ayscough's mind, and with Jack Cade's rebel's drawing ever closer, Asycough left the city heading for his home in Dorset.

William Ayscough, along with Moleyn's had been a royal councilor and in his capacity as Henry VI's confessor, had been one of a few men who had been close to the king. However, he did himself no flavours by suggesting (allegedly) to Henry that he abstain from having sex with the queen. This of course was taken as jeopardising the succession, and seeing that there was no Lancastrian heir and that Richard, Duke of York was hovering in the wings it was certainly a risky thing to say.

Asycough's movements after leaving London are not documented and the reason he was taking mass at the priory church
in Edington in Wiltshire on the 29th of June is unclear, but its likely that it was a stopping point on his southwards journey home to Sherborne.

Maybe he thought that he would be safe, but he was far from it.

Ayscough's fears that he too would die at the hands of a mob turned into reality when he was killed by the people of
Edington parish while at mass in the church of that forms part of the Bonhommes Priory.

Of Ayscough's death the Chronicles of England states

'William Ascoghe, bisshop of Salisbury was slayn of his owen parisshens and peple . . . aftir that he hadde saide
Mass, and was draw from the auter and lad up to an hill the beside, to his awbe and his stole aboute his necke; and their
they slow him horribly, thair fader and thair bisshoppe and spoillid him unto the nakid skyn, and rente his blody shirte
in to pecis.'

Hill in the fields just outside Edington Church and Priory.

You have to wonder if some of the men who died in the turmoil that engulfed the country in 1450 were all bad, Ayscouth it seems
'concerned himself regularly with diocesan affairs and the maintenance of orthodoxy'

It is thought that Ayscough was buried where he was slain, less than a mile where King Alfred fought Guthram at the Battle of Edington in 878.

(My photographs of Edington Church and the fields that surround it were taken in 2014 when my daughter lived in Bratton, Edington's neigbouring village.)

0 Comments

Anthony Woodville: Adds to his Will

Bastard Slips Shall Not Take Root

The Execution of William Hastings

Death of William Ayscough

Categories

Archives