{"title":"Alienated Outsider or Integrated Courtier? Edward Stafford, Third Duke of Buckingham, 1498–1521 and the Royal Court","authors":"JAMES ROSS","doi":"10.1111/1468-229X.13346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (d. 1521), is a key example in the historiographical interpretation of relations between crown and nobility as difficult and in conflict under the first two Tudor kings, not least because of his execution for treason in 1521. In particular, he has been seen as an outsider at the Tudor court, playing little role there except perhaps on great set-piece occasions. He was, in this interpretation, unable to adapt to the new role demanded of the nobility by the crown. Yet, drawing on the evidence of his extant and unpublished household accounts, Stafford can be seen to be very regularly at court under both Henry VII and Henry VIII, playing far more than just a ceremonial role, and it was only shortly before his execution that his relationship with Henry VIII soured. The duke's purposes in his attendance at court – service to the king, furtherance of his own business and leisure interests – can be teased out from the accounts, as can relationships with others at court. The study concludes by examining the extent to which the higher nobility expected to be at court and to be influential with the king in the period between 1485 and 1529. An appendix constructs a full itinerary for the duke for 1 April 1506 – 31 March 1507 from the evidence of a household account.</p>","PeriodicalId":13162,"journal":{"name":"History","volume":"108 379-380","pages":"20-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1468-229X.13346","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-229X.13346","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Edward Stafford, third duke of Buckingham (d. 1521), is a key example in the historiographical interpretation of relations between crown and nobility as difficult and in conflict under the first two Tudor kings, not least because of his execution for treason in 1521. In particular, he has been seen as an outsider at the Tudor court, playing little role there except perhaps on great set-piece occasions. He was, in this interpretation, unable to adapt to the new role demanded of the nobility by the crown. Yet, drawing on the evidence of his extant and unpublished household accounts, Stafford can be seen to be very regularly at court under both Henry VII and Henry VIII, playing far more than just a ceremonial role, and it was only shortly before his execution that his relationship with Henry VIII soured. The duke's purposes in his attendance at court – service to the king, furtherance of his own business and leisure interests – can be teased out from the accounts, as can relationships with others at court. The study concludes by examining the extent to which the higher nobility expected to be at court and to be influential with the king in the period between 1485 and 1529. An appendix constructs a full itinerary for the duke for 1 April 1506 – 31 March 1507 from the evidence of a household account.
期刊介绍:
First published in 1912, History has been a leader in its field ever since. It is unique in its range and variety, packing its pages with stimulating articles and extensive book reviews. History balances its broad chronological coverage with a wide geographical spread of articles featuring contributions from social, political, cultural, economic and ecclesiastical historians. History seeks to publish articles on broad, challenging themes, which not only display sound scholarship which is embedded within current historiographical debates, but push those debates forward. History encourages submissions which are also attractively and clearly written. Reviews: An integral part of each issue is the review section giving critical analysis of the latest scholarship across an extensive chronological and geographical range.