The bones in the urn...again..

I've read an article in the press today that JA-H is calling for the bones to be re-examined because, in a new edition of Eleanor the Secret Queen that because one of the jaw bones shows evidence of hypotonia..congenital missing teeth ..indicates they are unlikely to have any genetic link to Richard, who we know did not have hypotonia,,. As both Anne Mowbray and Mary of Burgundy both had this condition is it not a dodgy route to go down? Another thing..not everyone who was related to someone who had this condition of the teeth would suffer from it. I don't believe for one instance that the remains are those of Edward and Richard I just question whether this is the correct route to go down as surely it's a theory that is flawed.

By the by,,I'm not posting on here much as its really difficult and time consuming to be able to do so. It really hacks me off and it's frustrating when you see something posted and you would like to respond..I wonder if others are having the same problem too...Eileen x

apologies for the strange question, but whose bones are you talking about?

I've read an article in the press today that JA-H is calling for the bones to be re-examined because, in a new edition of Eleanor the Secret Queen that because one of the jaw bones shows evidence of hypotonia..congenital missing teeth ..indicates they are unlikely to have any genetic link to Richard, who we know did not have hypotonia,,. As both Anne Mowbray and Mary of Burgundy both had this condition is it not a dodgy route to go down? Another thing..not everyone who was related to someone who had this condition of the teeth would suffer from it. I don't believe for one instance that the remains are those of Edward and Richard I just question whether this is the correct route to go down as surely it's a theory that is flawed.

By the by,,I'm not posting on here much as its really difficult and time consuming to be able to do so. It really hacks me off and it's frustrating when you see something posted and you would like to respond..I wonder if others are having the same problem too...Eileen x

oh yes i know about that. i have read, some time ago, that tho the identity of the bones is questioned. it is officially proclaimed that they are the remains of the princes in the tower. subsequently if any more tests are to be done the queen has to agree to it. the reason why she would allow it, is because that would open the doors to any historian demanding to exhume any remains of any king or queen.

Briefly - there's an urn in Westminster Abbey containing some bones discovered in the reign of Charles II, they are labelled as belonging to "the princes in the Tower." There are numerous reasons why this identification is ridiculous. They were examined by Tanner & Wright in the 1930's which work is still referenced as if it should be taken seriously.

There is a lot of information online on this subject, you could start here, for instance --

The Princes in the Urn: Why it’s Time to Let Go of the Westminster Abbey Myth

Agreed Hilary although I am inclined to believe that Richard did know what happened to them - more so if they were indeed sent to places of safety. I think he was able to satisfy EW with his account of where they were..and Im also inclined to the thought that EW, having some amount of knowledge as to where they were, found herself 'retired' to Bermondsey Abbey, where according to her will she was practically left without a pot to pee in...Eileen

On Friday, July 29, 2016, 13:25, cherryripe.eileenb@... [] <> wrote:

Well Hilary, I don't know how bright EW was but I'm pretty sure she was not that daft to come out of sanctuary, let her oldest daughters attend Richard's court, and write to her son holed up in France to return home, all would be well if he put himself into Richards hands if she thought or even suspected that Richard had slaughtered her two young sons. What chance would her adult children have if he murdered mere children without compunction. Historians have written in the past well she was pragmatic enough to realise she had run out of options..I don't buy into that...

Hi David,

I do agree with Eileen. I'm afraid I'm completely underwhelmed by the idea that Elizabeth Woodville had run out of options, or even (per Hicks) that her surrender proves she knew her sons were dead.

Despite what is usually written, there is no evidence at all that Elizabeth Woodville emerged from sanctuary herself - that was not the deal. Just suppose Richard had given her proof he'd murdered her sons. How would any mother react? 'Oh well, that's that then. You'd better have the girls as well, then - just promise not to lock them up in the Tower, please.' Bear in mind that at the time this deal was done there was a dispensation for Elizabeth's marriage to HT being sought in Rome.

No, as a mother (pulling rank here) I have to say the idea is completely daft. Whatever was going on, it wasn't that.

As for the remains - there surely can't be a link with Margaret of Burgundy's skeleton because the skeleton that was thought might belong to her turned out to have the wrong mtDNA. The attempt to link the hypodontia with Anne Mowbray is also very weak since Anne inherited this trait from her father, who was not related to the Princes. And those remains were just buried too deep, too inaccessibly, and are too fragmentary, to be at all likely to belong to the Princes. Also, Bill White did query whether the missing teeth in can be definitely said to have never been present, or whether they may have been lost.

Apparently both hypodontia and Wormian bones are more common in females......

Plus the small matter of the apparently diseased jaw in the older skull, when we have absolutely no record of Edward V having had any such problem.

Tanner and Wright's claims about the ages of the owners have also been much criticised, and Bill White has indicated that the difference of opinion amongst experts seems to be a factor of which bones they happen to be looking at; hence he suggested that we may have bits of more than two individuals in the urn.

No, sorry, whatever the solution to this mystery turns out to be, it will be infinitely more complex and subtle than this.

Marie

Hi Hilary,

I don't think we misunderstood your position, it's just that conversations move on. I think most of us (bar David) would agree with you that, whatever Elizabeth Woodville had learned about her sons, it was not that Richard had murdered them. One can argue for various other possible scenarios, but her behaviour doesn't give us a clear-cut alternative story. It is consistent with some scenarios and not others.

Well Hilary, I don't know how bright EW was but I'm pretty sure she was not that daft to come out of sanctuary, let her oldest daughters attend Richard's court, and write to her son holed up in France to return home, all would be well if he put himself into Richards hands if she thought or even suspected that Richard had slaughtered her two young sons. What chance would her adult children have if he murdered mere children without compunction. Historians have written in the past well she was pragmatic enough to realise she had run out of options..I don't buy into that...

I think you all misunderstood what I said. By the time Elizabeth had come out of sanctuary any Woodville attempt at power had failed dismally in the autumn of 1483. She could well have agreed with Richard that a compromise solution would be to let them lie low somewhere (don't think Burgundy for a minute, Margaret had no power and Maximilien was under threat from French ambitions, he didn't want another complication). So there would have been no need for assurance; that had already been arranged and was conveniently omitted from any public statement which drew more attention to her and her daughters and away from them? H

From: "'Doug Stamate' destama@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 29 July 2016, 15:49
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: The bones in the urn...again..

Eileen wrote: Well Hilary, I don't know how bright EW was but I'm pretty sure she was not that daft to come out of sanctuary, let her oldest daughters attend Richard's court, and write to her son holed up in France to return home, all would be well if he put himself into Richards hands if she thought or even suspected that Richard had slaughtered her two young sons. What chance would her adult children have if he murdered mere children without compunction. Historians have written in the past well she was pragmatic enough to realise she had run out of options..I don't buy into that...  Doug here: Apparently those historians you mention seem to have thought that <b>all</b> that mattered to EW, or anyone else for that matter, was POWER, the getting and retaining of! It really is amazing, the contortions historians have put themselves through trying desperately to prove the boys were killed by Richard! Any view other than that of HT, as founder of the Tudor dynasty, can never be considered because  why? It's as if they believe that the truth about Richard's nephews, or Bosworth, would somehow invalidate the events of Henry VIII and his children that were so foundational to Britain's growth as a major power. No, that truth would only tarnish HT's reputation; his children weren't involved. Well, except for Henry VIII's execution of Margaret of Salisbury... Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Mary,
One of the problems with this theory is that Simnel was definitely crowned as Edward VI. (JAH's book, documentary evidence in Dublin). So why not try to reinstate Edward V? It would make as much sense, if you were putting up an expendable imposter. This rules out the possibility that Edward V was at Stoke.

Secondly, there is no evidence at all that EW was involved in the plot. I have read speculation that her move to Bermondsey might be because of her involvement, but that is pure speculation and a recent biographer claimed to have found evidence that she was planning to retire before the Simnel plot. So drawing any conclusion from her involvement is unsound. As you point out it would endanger her remaining children and depose her daughter as queen.

Having Simnel impersonate Warwick does not seem so silly if we assume that the rebels did not know that Henry had not executed him (yet).

Kind regards.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Agree Eileen. Surely she wouldn't have been involved in the Lambert Simnel plot if her sons were dead and she knew they were dead. She would be putting her daughter and her grandchildren's lives in danger if Simnel was merely an imposter who thought one day that he would impersonate Edward V/ Warwick. There's so much that we don't know. Simnel could have just been used by Tudor to cover the fact that his troops had killed the real Edward V / Warwick during the Battle of Stoke. We need a tardis!!

Hi David,

Would you be able to tell me which biographer claimed to have found evidence of EW's plan to retire to Bermondsey before the Simnel business, please? I'd be interested in looking that up.

Marie

Marie to David..'would you be able to tell me which biographer claimed to have found evidence of EWs plan to retire to Bermondsey Abbey before the Simnel business? I'd be interested in looking that up'..oh yes please, me too...because it wasn't david Baldwin was it..page 122 of his biography of EW 'The Simnel rebellion was effectively Elizabeth's last throw of the political dice and the remaining five years of her life were spent in involuntary retirement.......'

Yep, but that doesn't constitute *evidence* that she was planning this retreat. Okerlund is not what I'd call a proper historian, and Anne Crawford's review of this book was very critical of its speculative nature. She gives a false impression of having looked at documents that don't exist, for instance when she states as fact that EW took up residence in the royal apartments at Bermondsey. Her source is Clarke's history of Bermondsey Abbey, and he merely observes that "she had a right to claim apartments as King Edward's widow." He really doesn't know what to make of what happened to her in 1487.

Okerlund is merely speculating, and this is not new - a view that her retreat to Bermondsey may have been voluntary has been around for a while. In my view it glosses over the problems. Right from the start of his reign Henry had been less than friendly towards her. For instance, she had petitioned parliament for her dower rights as Edward IV's queen during the autumn of 1485, but could not get the royal assent until January 1486, after Henry had finally agreed to marry her daughter and gone ahead with it. Vergil doesn't attempt to disguise the fact that in February 1487 these lands were confiscated again, not voluntarily surrendered, viz "Among other things, Elizabeth, the one-time consort of King Edward, was mulcted of all her possessions because she had entrusted herself and her daughters to King Richard....." In April these lands were bestowed on her daughter the Queen. This left her totally dependant on her daughter, and she may not have had any choice but to retire to a nunnery. The much vaunted annuity of 400 marks was not granted until May 1488, and it's a good deal less than she had had from Richard.

After this she appears only once more. She did not attend the court Christmas festivities, nor her daughter's coronation feast (not even behind a screen, like Henry and his mother), nor Elizabeth's next taking of her chamber, in which the procession of ladies was ostentatiously headed by Margaret Beaufort. Just after that, one of the Luxembourg relatives was visiting England, and Elizabeth's lying in was at first used as an excuse to prevent him seeing her. Finally, when he insisted, he was taken into the Queen's chamber, and miraculously found her there with EW and Margaret Beaufort. And yet we know EW had not taken the Queen's chamber with her. It has, therefore, not unreasonably been suggested that he had been told he couldn't see EW either because she was in the Queen's chamber, so when finally his demands to see his relations became too difficult to ignore they had to smuggle EW into the Queen's chamber. With MB present, they would not have been able to talk freely.

As for her funeral at Windsor, that is also interesting This is from the Heralds' Memoir:

"On Whitsonday she was accordyng to her desire by water conveied to Wyndesore and ther prevely thorow the litill parke conveied into the castell, with out ryngyng of any belles or receyvyng of the dean or chanons in their habites or accompanyed as whos sayes, but with the prior of the Charterhous of Shen, Dr Brent, her chapelain, and oon of her executores, Edmond Hault, Maistres Grace, a bastard dowghter of kyng Edwarde, and upon an other gentlewomen. And, as it is told to me, oon prest of the college and a clerke receyved her in the castell And so prevely about xj of the clocke in the nyght She was beried with oute any solempne Direge. . . "

Her family members were not there to receive the body. They started turning up the next day, so perhaps the King had not intended to honour her wish to be buried with Edward IV but her executors had taken matters into their own hands. She was buried in a wooden coffin without a lead lining.

I was only commenting on the fact that he can't have been Edward V. I went no further - we had been discussing Elizabeth Woodville's disgrace in 1487 and what might have motivated it.

The boy was crowned as Edward VI and his supporters said he was Clarence's son. Henry VII said he was an Oxford joiner's son named Lambert Simnel.

I'm afraid that, although, John is completely right on the above, I'm very unconvinced by the other arguments in 'The Dublin King'. The claim that Clarence might have succeeded in swapping his son with another child I find highly unconvincing - Edward had the whole story, including the identities of the men whom Clarence had charged with pulling this off, and those people got into no trouble and Edward was happy to publicise the details of the plot, so the only logical conclusion is that these men had decided instead to reveal the whole thing to the King. Also, this attempt seems to have been made after Clarence had been placed in the Tower, because the details are appended to the list of charges in the Act of Attainder as a failed attempt that had been made "now late" (i.e. very recently). And if you discard the changeling that theory, then we are left with only one earl of Warwick up to Henry VII's reign, which simplifies the possibilities.

Also, John's suggestion (first made, but since withdrawn by Michael Bennett) that the name Lambert Simnel was a moniker made up for the pretender by Henry VII, doesn't hold water because the Simnel surname can be traced back before this period and there is documentary evidence of Thomas Simnel's existence in Oxford in the 1470s. (I wrote about this in last September's Bulletin.)

The apparent discrepancy between the ages of Warwick and Simnel is, I believe, resolvable but I'm holding this back for a book of my own.

That de la Pole roll has been much discussed on the forum - despite what some writers have claimed, it never belonged to Lincoln but was produced early in Henry VIII's reign. It actually claims that Richard recognised *Lincoln* as his heir at a parliament held at Westminster in the January of the second year of his reign. Evidently this is untrue - Richard's only parliament took place in his first year as king, when his own son was still living. It needs to be viewed in the context of the claim to the throne being made by Richard de la Pole at this time.

Marie

Elizabeth Woodville was doing what was expected of any medieval queen - any medieval noblewoman, come to that - in being conspicuously religious. She only got a licence to attend the services in Carthusian houses of royal foundation, and one of these was at Shene, of course. Since she would have been expected to hear Mass daily in any case, it would have been no real hardship. It makes her no different from all those other ladies of high status (one thinks of MB, Cecily, Anne of Buckingham, and even Anne Neville) and doesn't by any means allow us to assume she would have intended to end her days in a religious house. (I think Joanna Laynesmith is going to have something to say about the modern misinterpretation of highborn ladies conspicuously living "the mixed life" in her forthcoming book on Cecily Neville.)

Also, everyone chose an emblem, and most in fact had a religious meaning as well as an heraldic one. The White Rose, for instance, was associated with the BVM. Gillyflowers (carnations) were symbolic of marriage, and until very recently were still the flower of choice for wedding buttonholes. On a political level, Elizabeth was stating that, despite the irregularity of the wedding, she was Edward IV's true wife and nobody could challenge her right.

So in a nutshell, Anne Crawford is right - Arlene Okerlund doesn't have an understanding of the times and so her conclusions are flaky.

You might well ask.

I must get my other projects out of the way and write this book.

What is often overlooked is that at roughly the same time that EW 'retired' to Bermondsey, a house of monks, her son, Dorset, 'retired' to the Tower for a while. Now: 1. If EW was suddenly overcome with religious fervour, why did she not choose a nunnery, where she could have been among women of a similar mind. The Minories, for example? 2. If Dorset was struck by a similar impulse, what made him 'choose' the Tower? In my view there was some obvious 'political' element to these oh-so-convenient 'retirals'. It may of course prove nothing more than that Henry VII was paranoid. Having read The Winter King, which made me revise my opinion of Mr Tydder somewhat downward, I can quite believe this. What I find very hard to believe is that EW would want to remove her own daughter from the throne of queen consort in order to make Clarence's son king. That defies all logic. Brian W.

Maybe..although I do have my suspicions about EofY. I wonder how she felt about PW...for example if she had guessed that he may have been her brother how much effort would she have put into have him saved..surely if one of her brothers had returned this would have put her and her children in an awkward position. I also wonder how she felt about the continuing imprisonment of her hapless cousin Warwick...did she do anything to make sure his incarceration was more bearable...maybe I just can't forgive her for marrying the man who stole the throne from her uncle...I'm probably being very harsh on her but she just seems so..well bland - for the lack of a better word..

Yes, Eileen, a face that states its owner hears no evil, sees no evil and thinks no evil...but behind the mask did she know exactly how meek to be in order to keep Henry and his mother satisfied that she wasn't going to present a problem. Who knows what she got up to when they weren't looking? Henry was a very shrewd and clever man, but was he shrewd and clever where women were concerned? Aside from Margaret Beaufort, he doesn't strike me as a warm and loving fellow who always considered the fair sex and understood their feelings. Indeed no. Could he see beyond his long nose? Or did he come to take Elizabeth of York for granted? Surely even his paranoia was soothed as the years passed and she always lay accommodatingly in his bed, produced a regular supply of offspring and smiled sweetly when he joined her. Then, when she perceived an opportunity, did she do what she could to ease the lot of her beleaguered relatives? Is that the real Elizabeth of York? Or was she, after all, as bland as she seemed? But then, there would come a point (e.g. the possibility of aiding Warwick to escape) when helping the remnants of the House of York would endanger the interests of her children, who themselves were half York. A dilemma. Perhaps Henry was shrewd after all where his queen was concerned, and knew exactly where she would draw the line in the sand. Oh, that time machine is like a government contract---over-priced, behind its delivery date, and everyone knows it's unlikely to satisfy all criteria. Without it, we'll never know what went on behind the closed doors of that marriage. From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 5:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: The bones in the urn...again..

Maybe..although I do have my suspicions about EofY.

Great description......so we the men around her so busy they did not notice what she was up to, or so besotted with her that they chose not too, or was bust just very clever and fooled everyone? Oh for that time machine.......
On Jul 31, 2016, at 2:48 PM, 'sandramachin' sandramachin@... [] <> wrote:

Yes, Eileen, a face that states its owner hears no evil, sees no evil and thinks no evil...but behind the mask did she know exactly how meek to be in order to keep Henry and his mother satisfied that she wasn't going to present a problem. Who knows what she got up to when they weren't looking? Henry was a very shrewd and clever man, but was he shrewd and clever where women were concerned? Aside from Margaret Beaufort, he doesn't strike me as a warm and loving fellow who always considered the fair sex and understood their feelings. Indeed no. Could he see beyond his long nose? Or did he come to take Elizabeth of York for granted? Surely even his paranoia was soothed as the years passed and she always lay accommodatingly in his bed, produced a regular supply of offspring and smiled sweetly when he joined her. Then, when she perceived an opportunity, did she do what she could to ease the lot of her beleaguered relatives? Is that the real Elizabeth of York? Or was she, after all, as bland as she seemed? But then, there would come a point (e.g. the possibility of aiding Warwick to escape) when helping the remnants of the House of York would endanger the interests of her children, who themselves were half York. A dilemma. Perhaps Henry was shrewd after all where his queen was concerned, and knew exactly where she would draw the line in the sand. Oh, that time machine is like a government contract---over-priced, behind its delivery date, and everyone knows it's unlikely to satisfy all criteria. Without it, we'll never know what went on behind the closed doors of that marriage. From: mailto: Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 5:29 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: The bones in the urn...again..

Maybe..although I do have my suspicions about EofY.

You don't feel that perhaps EofY could have done a bit more for her mother?

On Tuesday, August 2, 2016, 13:31, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Mary: Yes I see what you mean Eileen. Though I don't think that she had any choice about marrying Tudor. I think I read somewhere, or maybe it was when Ann Wroe came to give a talk to our branch, that E of Y didn't actually ever see PW. It must have been a bit odd she must have known that he existed and didn't his wife Katherine Gordon spend a few years at Henry's court?

I believe that the original source that E of Y never met Perkin comes from Bacon, who IMHO may not be all that reliable on this as he wasn't even born until 1561, and was in Elizabeth I service. I find it difficult to believe that she was not at the reception for the Italian ambassadors where Perkin and Lady Catherine were presented in late 1497. He also lived at the court in close proximity to her for 8-9 months, and is known to have attended other functions. I don't see how it was possible to have completely avoided him. Even if she hadn't seen him for nearly 15 years, I still think she would have known whether it was him or not.
Nico








On Tuesday, 2 August 2016, 12:55, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


Hilary...Good old George...,!
I did know that MB did own a home quite close to to Croyland Abbey...perfect for meetings with blooming Morton...im not sure what you mean by George and MB owned Croyland..is that a town, or Manor House? I'm wondering if that is the home I have read about..I can't recall the name at this very moment but I'm sure it wasn't called Croyland...? Eileen

Maybe. But EoY owned--and kept--two books that had belonged to Richard as Duke of Gloucester, Boethius' Consolations of Philosophy and The Romance of Tristram. Since she signed her name simply as "Elyzabeth" with no indication of rank, he must have given them to her while he was Lord Protector and she was in sanctuary. In one of the books, she added her new motto, "sans removyr" (without changing) and in the other, she seems to have added *his* motto, "loyalte me lye" [sic]. All of which *could* be read to support the idea that she was in love with him and at any rate seems to indicate that she did not hate or resent him. (She may well have resented her mother, though, and was no doubt delighted when Richard got her and her sisters out of sanctuary!)

Marie here:

Actually, Weir got this from an article by Anne Sutton and Livia Visser-Fuchs in The Ricardian - Ms Weir doesn't do original research. I must say I'm a bit uncertain that we really can make much of Elizabeth signing herself in this way as her mother used to sign her name plain Elizabeth when she was Edward's queen. The mottoes are intriguing, but the books just may have come into her hands after Bosworth.

Hi Hilary,

Wasn't it that MB owned the neighbouring manor of Deeping, which shared a (disputed) boundary with Crowland abbey?

Hilary wrote:

Which makes me ask what was the official view of the Church on the putting aside of Edward's sons? It never went to an ecclesiastical court or involved the Pope

Marie here:

So far as I'm aware the Church didn't express a view openly - it was for the English people to decide whom they wanted as king, and for parliament to rule on legitimacy for purposes of inheritance although churchmen were in general not happy with English common law taking a divergent (and harsher view) on legitimacy in certain circumstances than they did themselves (viz those born out of wedlock to single parents who later married each other). Crowland takes a dim view of Richard bastardising Edward without reference to a church court.

But bear in mind that the grounds for Edward V's bastardisation were completely in accord with canon law, so the divergence objection doesn't apply in this case. AlsoTitulus Regius was passed by parliament, and that included the First Estate so the top churchmen had a chance to make their views felt. We don't have any fly-on-the-wall account of Richard's parliament, but interestingly we do know that Henry's *repeal* of TR was held up for a bit by unnamed bishops - or at least a bishop - insisting on having a chance to question Stillington before taking a decision.

Hilary wrote:

Could they have had a reason for wanting it to happen? Perhaps you know more Marie as this is your area?

Marie here:

The Vatican does seem to have taken a dim view of Richard, and I do think the bastardisation of Edward V could have had something to do with that. The later rumours that he'd been done away with, together with the tales told by Morton when he was in Rome, put the final nails in Richard's coffin as far as the Vatican was concerned. But it has to be said that Henry Tudor learned a valuable lesson from what happened to Edward V, and made sure to have every aspect of the validity of his own marriage assured by various papal dispensations and decrees, with threat of excommunication for anyone who said different.

It begins to remind me of the Collins book where Richard said it was the Church. H

Marie:

Ah, yes, you mean the book where one half is Rev. Denning recounting what Richard's spirit told him via a medium, and the other half is by R. E. Collins on the possibility that Edward IV was poisoned with arsenic?

Mmm, yes, Denning's testimony in that regard is not too far wide of the mark, perhaps, although the Church doesn't seem to have had any role in actually getting rid of Richard. So far as we can tell the papacy didn't actively interfere in the politics until after Bosworth, when Innocent VIII - trusting he was about to get an English army to take on the Turks - did everything he could to shore up Henry's kingship.

Maybe Collins was just lucky - given that he was a C of E vicar he may just have tended to suspect that Catholic Church was behind every nefarious going-on.

Hilary wrote:

I think what you're saying is that the Church must have believed in the pre-contract. They might not have wanted to, but they didn't object which, as there was no armed coup, says they reluctantly handed the issue over to Parliament because they believed it was the truth. Just think of the fuss they caused for Henry VIII on a more minor ( I know it wasn't really to him) issue.

Marie replies:

Not really. The Church did not normally behave proactively with regard to ruling on the validity of marriages - they waited for one of the interested parties to bring cases before them. So I'm not suggesting at all that "the Church" (a loose term in itself) handed the issue over to parliament. The matter of the prencontract was publicly broached by Richard and his advisors, and a judgement was made first of all by the quasi-parliamentary body that had assembled for the coronation, and then given written force of law by the passage of Titulus Regius, a Bill presented to the King by the Three Estates (i.e. neither a royal bill nor one based on a petition from "the Church as a body). Though the Church *could* have ruled on the canonical validity of the marriage through a bishop's court, it was for parliament to rule on the succession and so passing the matter to an ecclesiastical court would have been to put the matter of the English succession in its hands, which was not its job.

The only point I was making is that the grounds on which Edward V was set aside were valid in canon law, and that the Three Estates included the bishops and abbots so we might assume from (a) the presentation and - so far as we know - unopposed passage of TR, and (2) the question raised by bishops in relation to Henry's Bill of repeal, that there was considerable acceptance of the bastardy ruling amongst the higher clergy.

With regard to Stillington, perhaps you're looking too hard at his diocesan connections - he actually almost never went there. Aren't what you're finding simply the families who were prominent in that area? It just happens it was a part of the country that was very dominated by certain interests and so heavily involved in Buckingham's Rebellion. The other way of looking at Stillington is as a Yorkshireman - his family connections up there suggest something different again.

Then there's the undeniable evidence of his career. He was sacked as Chancellor by the Re-adeption government and fled into sanctuary. He was arrested after Bosworth, on the wanted list again in 1487 (it's stretching things a bit far to link that to EW) and spent his last few years under official control.

I have to say that I also think it's rather anachronistic to label Beckington as Lancastrian because of his links with Henry VI. Henry was the reigning king and there was at that time no Lancaster-York rivalry. Waynflete had been well liked by Henry VI but was also well regarded by York, and in 1483 he persuaded Richard to take in his foundation of Magdalen College, Oxford, on his progress, and personally - and seemingly enthusiastically - hosted the visit (even arriving the day before to make sure everything was set up ready to his satisfaction); Richard seems to have enjoyed his stay in the college no end.

Perhaps Stillington had hoped that setting aside Edward IV's issue would make way for Warwick, but 8-year-old Warwick was a non-starter as a candidate in the crisis atmosphere of 1483 and Richard does seem to have enjoyed the support of Clarence's old affinity.

What is also interesting is to look at the Catherine Gordon aspect of this. As has been pointed out she really was a very minor Scottish royal. Were the Scots just trying to stir up trouble for HT without really believing Warbeck was Richard? Most local countries around that time wanted to stir up trouble for Henry who was not very loved to say the least. And she herself doesn't mention him at all in her will - which was years' after both HT and Warbeck's death. Yet she is very flattering about her other husbands. Had she believed him to be the romantic lost prince would she not have said something? After all no-one could touch her once she was dead. H (who is absolutely no expert on this)
From: "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 4 August 2016, 10:47
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Re: The bones in the urn...again..
If Elizabeth had met Perkin and then said no this isn't Edward loud and clear what a brilliant move by Henry...but this didn't happen...it's all very mysterious..

Hilary wrote on Stillington:

Marie:

Surely Anne Beauchamp also stood to gain by Richard becoming king with her daughter as his queen? If Buckingham had got wind of the EB story, then there's no indication that he told it to Richard before June. And how would someone like Buckingham have found out about EB? Also, he would have known about the effect of Clarence's attainder so couldn't have assumed that Warwick could be put on the throne. If I'd been him, and wanted to make use of a story like that, I'd have sat tight, got Richard to give me Warwick's wardship and have poor Clarence's attainder reversed, then after a decent interval pulled the rabbit out of the hat. But it was Anne St Leger that Buckingham got hold of for himself, not Warwick. Couldn't it just be that he saw an opportunity to rise to power by helping Richard dash Woodville plots? Or maybe he hoped the two sides would destroy each other and he could claim the throne for himself?

Lady Katherine's will is an interesting document, especially since there was no real need for her to write one because her husband would automatically inherit anything of significant value. The purpose appears to be to ensure that make charitable bequests and allow her executor (who was Cicely's daughter Margaret Kyme) to distribute some personal items. Might this have been to ensure that sentimental items (perhaps related to Perkin) went to her son and his family rather than being sold off by her husband, who sounds like a really unpleasant gold digger?

The date - October 12 1537 - also suggests that Lady Katherine was protecting her son.* In the earlier years of Henry VIII reign, he seemed untroubled by his Yorkist relatives, but their position was becoming less secure, as Henry became desperate about the succession. If he couldn't secure it, would her son have been in danger? Edward VI was born in the early hours of October 12, but she wouldn't have been aware of it when the will was signed. It must have been a tense time leading up to it, as anyone could anticipate Henry's wrath if Jane Seymour's baby was a girl. Also I have often wondered about Henry and Perkin. He was close to EofY and not HVII, and was old enough to remember that particular time. What might EofY said to him in private?
One thing about Lady K that I don't quite understand is the high position she held at court. Ann Wroe says that she was 5th in importance after EofY, MB and Princesses Margaret and Mary. As Hilary says, she was from minor Scottish nobility, and wasn't even closely related to James, so where does the seniority come from? Was it something to do with 'Richard,' or is it just a mistake by Ann Wroe (who wrote an excellent book, but tends to state some speculations as fact.)

* (Some writers assume that her son (or one of two sons) died young , but this doesn't seem likely since he is not mentioned in the chantry list of relatives she requests prayers for. Even if she didn't mention her marriage to Perkin, it would still be likely that she would want the souls of any deceased children to be prayed for. She need not have mention who the father was. There is a line of Welsh gentry from the Gower that claim descent from Perkin, which does seem credible given the connections between her 3rd husband Matthew Cradock and Henry VII.)

Nico






On Thursday, 4 August 2016, 11:20, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


Hilary 'we're the scouts trying to stir up trouble for Henry'...very likely...the same way as the French stirred up,trouble for Richard when they supported HT.
Katherine not mentioning Perkin in her will..maybe her son by him was still alive so she felt best to stay silent to protect the still living. ...similarly EW never mentioned her youngest sons in her will or, if I recall correctly, Cicely never mentioned Richard..which may have been her attempt to protect young Warwick...it would not have been wise to antagonise HT in any way shape or form..Eileen

Nance wrote:

Re the pre-contract - Been wondering if this is the primary reason fiddling around with the Dowager Catherine didn't get Owen Tudor's body parts hacked up - if they claimed they had sworn troth privately, wouldn't everyone just have said. "Oh, they're married. Off with them, they're welcome to each other in Wales, where it won't bother the rest of us ever, again." ?

Marie:

You'd perhaps expect it to have been the other way about, since an Act of parliament had made anyone marrying Katherine subject to forfeiture - what worried Gloucester was the risk that would pose to his own position in the pecking order. Was there anything to stop her having liaisons since she was long widowed (i.e. no risk of her passing off her lover's child as being the king's)?

Hilary wrote:

If you read the excellent Ian Arthurson it is - the Perkin Warbeck Conspiracy. He has done more research in Tournai than Wroe and, because it's about international politics, not Richard, he has no particular axe to grind other than to display how they were 'setting up' Henry. To Arthurson Warbeck is a fantasist who Henry's foreign political enemies were happy to use and his research into Warbeck's early life backs this up. H

Marie:

I have Arhurson - I've found his book to be as problematic as Wroe's in its own way. He certainly has an agenda, and both he and Wroe fail to make it clear where they are relying on Tudor histories / the confession rather than hard evidence, so their books can only be used with a huge amount of effort.

To precis what Arthurson has to say:

1) Tournai is on a slow-moving and narrow stretch of the River Scheldt.

1) Perkin's paternal grandfather, Diericq Warbeck, was a boatbuilder and town burgess, died c.1474.

2) Perkin's father, Jehan Warbeck, inherited his father's position as a town burgess in 1474. Had at least a spell as Comptroller of Tournai. The family were "entrepreneurs - pilots and merchants." He describes them as "belonging to the prosperous middling sort." The Guild of Boatmen of the Scheldt was highly influential. But I cannot see that Arthurson claims Jehan Warbeck owned a ship. The trade in Tournai was by river traffic. He does claim Perkin was placed into the cloth trade (I think this is merely following the confession, and the fact that his maternal grandfather was in the canvas trade), and sent off by whoever he was working for to the towns that traded in English woollen cloths. There doesn't actually seem to be any evidence that Perkin "mingled with noblemen" although Arthurson insinuates that the top ranks of society in Tournai could have done so like those in Ghent. But Tournai was not Ghent - Ghent was a residence of the dukes of Burgundy.

I do agree that Ann Wroe was misled by a) looking for a purely Tournai-based Guild of Boatmen, and b) expecting people at a certain level of society at that period to behave with decorum - she found Jehan in trouble for brawling on more than one occasion, and so presumed the family must have belonged to some sort of underclass. She clearly hadn't spent much time in the fifteenth century!

But I also feel that Arthurson has gilded the lily rather in his anxiety to convince his readers that someone like Perkin could have passed himself off as a prince. He goes the other way and glosses over Jehan Warbeck's bad behaviour (according to Wroe, he was banished from Tournai at one point), though he did discover the man was maintaining two bastards in different towns.

My last post doesn't seem to have appeared, so here goes again.

Ann Wroe also went to Tournai and looked in the archives there. She also found Peter Warbeck existed. Interestingly, she also found evidence that he was still living after the Pretender was executed.

I think it's really time for a new work on the subject, one that makes its sources clear and avoids drawing evidence from speeches put in Perkin's mouth by later writers, and scenes that are the work of later Tudor historians. They so muddy the waters. This is the problem - I'm not convinced that all of Arthurson's detail is reliable. Looking at the references for the information on the Warbecks, I now see they are ALL secondary sources. I know that, after publishing Perkin, he was in Belgium researching for a book on the Simnel rebellion et al that has never appeared, but I don't know how much original research he did for Perkin.

Marie

Mary wrote:

Is "Perkin" being looked at as part of the Society's research project.

Marie:

Do you mean Philippa Langley's project to discover what happened to the Princes? It's not a Society project as such although the team running it are all members. Currently the emphasis seems to be on gathering information on what was going on in 1483. I don't know where it will go after that.

Do an interested but not scholarly Ricardian, I find this to be so interesting. The swirls inside the courts of the Tudors, and the outside machinations, make it very plausible that Henry was on guard every minute, and would do anything to keep his throne. Thanks to all of you who are scholars!
On Aug 4, 2016, at 3:12 PM, Nicholas Brown nico11238@... [] <> wrote:

Lady Katherine's will is an interesting document, especially since there was no real need for her to write one because her husband would automatically inherit anything of significant value. The purpose appears to be to ensure that make charitable bequests and allow her executor (who was Cicely's daughter Margaret Kyme) to distribute some personal items. Might this have been to ensure that sentimental items (perhaps related to Perkin) went to her son and his family rather than being sold off by her husband, who sounds like a really unpleasant gold digger?

The date - October 12 1537 - also suggests that Lady Katherine was protecting her son.* In the earlier years of Henry VIII reign, he seemed untroubled by his Yorkist relatives, but their position was becoming less secure, as Henry became desperate about the succession. If he couldn't secure it, would her son have been in danger? Edward VI was born in the early hours of October 12, but she wouldn't have been aware of it when the will was signed. It must have been a tense time leading up to it, as anyone could anticipate Henry's wrath if Jane Seymour's baby was a girl. Also I have often wondered about Henry and Perkin. He was close to EofY and not HVII, and was old enough to remember that particular time. What might EofY said to him in private?
One thing about Lady K that I don't quite understand is the high position she held at court. Ann Wroe says that she was 5th in importance after EofY, MB and Princesses Margaret and Mary. As Hilary says, she was from minor Scottish nobility, and wasn't even closely related to James, so where does the seniority come from? Was it something to do with 'Richard,' or is it just a mistake by Ann Wroe (who wrote an excellent book, but tends to state some speculations as fact.)

* (Some writers assume that her son (or one of two sons) died young , but this doesn't seem likely since he is not mentioned in the chantry list of relatives she requests prayers for. Even if she didn't mention her marriage to Perkin, it would still be likely that she would want the souls of any deceased children to be prayed for. She need not have mention who the father was. There is a line of Welsh gentry from the Gower that claim descent from Perkin, which does seem credible given the connections between her 3rd husband Matthew Cradock and Henry VII.)

Nico






On Thursday, 4 August 2016, 11:20, "cherryripe.eileenb@... []" <> wrote:


Hilary 'we're the scouts trying to stir up trouble for Henry'...very likely...the same way as the French stirred up,trouble for Richard when they supported HT.
Katherine not mentioning Perkin in her will..maybe her son by him was still alive so she felt best to stay silent to protect the still living. ...similarly EW never mentioned her youngest sons in her will or, if I recall correctly, Cicely never mentioned Richard..which may have been her attempt to protect young Warwick...it would not have been wise to antagonise HT in any way shape or form..Eileen

Hi Hilary,

Anne Wroe also visited Tournai and looked in its archives. She also found that Peter Warbeck existed. Indeed she found a reference to his still being alive after the Pretender's execution, which is something I wish Arthurson had at least addressed for his readers.

I would find it helpful if a new book about Warwick could be produced that was a lot more careful to stick to proper sources and distinguish what we can find out from solid documents from what has been alleged.

Hi Hilary,

Thanks for this. I must say I'm really not seeing this as evidence that Stillington was a Lancastrian. There were a lot of Hamptons around, great care would be needed to distinguish them, but were those of East Harptree ever in trouble over the Wars? Stillington's grand-daughters' marriages weren't in his gift. I don't know how Chokke came into the picture - had he been Hampton's executor? A top judge would be an entirely sensible choice in that regard.

As for the 16th century marriages, they tell us little because it was a new world and people simply did the best they could for themselves. I'm afraid I'm not seeing rabid Lancastrians in any of this. We'll just have to agree to differ on this one because we don't see the world in the same way.

By the by, I imagine you are using that book of Somerset wills? Two things about that - 1) they are precis rather than transcripts, ad 2) they are all wills of Somerset people that were proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury - they are not the locally proved wills that were destroyed when Exeter Cathedral was bombed. So the good news is that you can download Sir Richard Chokke's will from the National Archives website.

There are a couple of things coming together with that theory. One is the rumour that went round when she married Charles, that she wasn't a virgin, and even that she had a child (any such child, of course, too old to have been PW). Then there is the French story that came out after Perkin's defeat, to the effect that he was Margaret's bastard and his father was the Bishop of Cambrai. And finally there is the fact that Margaret brought up a boy of about the same age, whom she named 'Jehan le Saige', in her household at Binche, and he disappears from the records before PW turns up.

With regard to the last one, he is Ann Wroe's real theory, but there are problems. One is that his face would have been well known to members of Margaret's court. Another is that - when I looked further into the Binche accounts which she used for information on him - I saw that they are only extant up to about 1486 or 1487 (from memory) so that would on its own explain his disappearance from the record. Wroe's theory is that Jehan was Margaret's bastard, but he wasn't being raised as a nobleman and Jean le Sage is an almost derisive name (it was the ironic name by which one of Edward IV's fools was known, for instance). The third problem, as I discovered when I looked again at Christine Weightman's biography of Margaret, is that she had adopted other little boys in the same way.

Of course we'll never know.

Re hanging at Tyburn not being public enough - this was the big public place for hangings in the London area. Other places, such as Tower Hill, might be used for beheadings but if Henry had accorded PW death by beheading it would have led to questions.

And, yes, Eileen, you're correct - he was buried at the Austin Friars, which had taken a lot of very prominent traitors for burial during the course of the WotR.

Hi Hilary,

Most of the lists you see for battle casualties are modern, often relying on later sources, and aren't reliable.

For those slain or executed at Tewkesbury, though, we have three contemporary lists. The first is a partial one in the Arrivall:

" Edmond, callyd Duke of Somerset, the prior of Seynt Johns, called Ser John Longesthrother, Ser Thomas Tressham, Ser Gervaux of Clyfton, knyghts, squiers, and othar notable parsonnes dyvers, . . . divers tymes, were browght afore the Kyng's brothar, the Duke of Gloucestar and Constable of England, and the Duke of Norfolke, Marshall of England, theyr iudges; and so were iudged to deathe, in the mydst of the towne, Edmond Duke of Somarset, and the sayd Prior of Seint Johns, with many othar gentils that there were taken, and that of longe tyme had provoked and continuyed the great rebellyon that so long had endured in the land agaynst the Kynge, and contrye to the wele of the Realme. The sayd Duke, and othar thus iudged, were executyd in the mydste of the towne, upon a scaffolde therefore made, behedyd evereche one, and without any othar dismembringe, or settynge up, licensyd to be buryed.

Then there is this one, in a letter home by John Paston:

These be men that were headed:

The Duke of Somerset Sir Hugh Courtenay

The Lord of St John's Sir Thomas Tresham

Sir Gervase Clifton Sir William Newbery

Humphrey Audeley Mr Gower

Lowes Miles Mr Audeley

Forey of France Robert Clerke

Sir John Delvys Lechefeld, mason of Westminster

Lord Foskew' [Fortescue] alive Sir William Grymsby yet alive

Sir William Carre"

Then there is this, from

Then there is this, from BL Harley MS 545, f.132 (reproduced in Kingsford's English historical Literature):

These are the names of the noblemen that were slayne at Tewkesbury felde.

Lord Edwarde, prince of Kynge Henry, in the felde of Gastum besyde Tewkesbery, slayne and buryed in ye mydste of ye covent quiere in ye monastery ther : for whom god worketh. Lord Edmunde Duke late of Somarset taken and behedyd and buryed before an ymage of S. James at an autar in ye sayd monastery churche on ye northe parte. Lord John Somarset, brother of ye sayd duke of Somarset, slayne in the fylde ther, and buryed wt his sayd brother before ye sayd ymage toward mary mawdlyns auter. Lord Thomas Courtney Erie of Devonshire slayne in the filde and buried about ye mydst of ye sayd auter of saynt James. Syr Vmfray Haudeley ther take and behedyd and buryed wt ye sayd Thomas Courtney, Erle of Devenshire, in one sepulcre before ye sayd altar. Lord Wenloke slayne in the filde & his body take fro hens to be buryed. Sir Edmund Barnarde knight slayne in ye filde and syr William Whytingham knyght, slayn also in ye filde and bothe bodyes buryed in ye body of ye sayd monastarye churche callyd ye parishe churche besyde saint Jorges chapell. Syr John Delves, elder, slayne in ye filde : mastar John Delves, his sonne, take and beheadyd; and both buryed by syds seynt Johns chapell in ye sayde parishe churche and theyr bodies afterward take fro hens to theyr contrey. Syr John Locnor slayne and buryed in ye sayd parishe churche besyds ye bodies of ser Edmond and ser William before sayde. Syr William Vauce, knyght, slayn in ye fild, and buryed in ye parishe churche before an image of our lady pety in ye northe syd. Syr Geruase of Clifton, knyght, take and behedyd. Syr William Car, knyght, ser Henry Rose, knyght, taken and behedyd and buryed in ye churche yarde there. Syr William Lyrmouthe, knyght, Ser John Vring, knyght, ser Thomas Seiner, knyght, ser William Rowes, knyght, all slayne in ye filde and buryed in ye churche yarde. Syr Thomas Tryssam, knyght, take and behedyd, whos body was buryed in ye sayd monastary churche byfore a pilar betwyxt ye awtar of s. james and seint nicholas. Syr Willyam Newborow, knyght, take and behedyd, buryed in ye parishe churche, besyds ye fante of baptisme yer in ye southe syde. Mastar Henry Wrattesley, squier, slayne in ye filde and buryed in s. John baptist chaple in ye monastary churche on ye southe syde. Mastar Henry Baron, squire, slayn and buryed in ye parishe churche before an Image of seint clement pope and martyr, and his body aftarwarde was fet from hens to his contrey. Mastar Fildynge, squire, Mastar Hervy, recordar of Bristow, bothe slayne in ye filde and theyr bodyes buryed in ye churche wt many othar. John Gower, swerde berer of ye prince, John Flore, 1 bannarberer of ye duke of Somarset, Henry Tressam, Watar Courtney, Robait Acson, Lewis Milis, Birchfeld of Westminstar, Mastar Gogh, squire, ser Thomas Tressam his clerke, Turnebull, all take and behedyd, and theyr bodyes buryed in ye churche in dyvars placis. Also prior and lord of saynt Jones besyds London, taken in ye fild and wt othar behedyd, whos body closyd in leade was take from hens to his owne place.

Thes wer ther taken and presentyd to ye kynge, and pardonyd : ladye Margaret, qwene, ladye Anne, princes, ser John Foskew, chefe Judge of yngland, doctor Makerell, John Throomorton, Mastar Beynton, Mastar Wroghton; all pardonyd. Ser Henry Courtney take and aftarward behedyd.

I'll see if I can find out more about Sir Philip Maunsell. There is perhaps something fishy about his being captured by Sir John Conyers that puts me in mind of Edgecote rather than Tewkesbury.

Hilary wrote:

Thanks Marie!! I knew there was one other thing. James Strangeways's mother Eleanor Tailboys seems to have taken as her third husband John Twynyho, MP and cloth merchant The Twynyhos are confusing as you know but a lot of sources have him as the son of Ankarette. Still digging though. H

Marie replies:

A lot of sources are wrong! As you know, the death of Ankarette's son John in 1475 is recorded and at her death her heir was her grandson, John's son Roger.

The John Twynyho who married Eleanor was Ankarette's brother-in-law, a lawyer of Cirencester. He had been Attorney to Edward Prince of Wales in the last years of Edward IV's reign, and was also acting as steward for at least some of Buckingham's lands. Unlike the other members of the family, he did not get involved in Buckingham's Rebellion, though, and stayed in favour with Richard.

There is a question mark over John's position vis-à-vis Ankarette because she was brought through Cirencester by Clarence's men on her way to Warwick, and they even spent the night there. Also, in his will, John left a cup to Shaftesbury Abbey that the noble duke of Clarence had given him as a goodwill gift ('quem venerabilis dux Clarencie ex sua benevolencia michi dedit').

John of Cirencester's first wife (married in the 1460s) was Agnes Womer, a widow (Ankarette's *son* John was simultaneously married to Katherine Solers). After they had married they discovered there was an impediment of third-and-fourth-degree affinity resulting from Agnes' previous marriage, and they got themselves a dispensation from the Penitentiary in 1473. Agnes died some time after 1475 but I've not been able to discover when. They had had two daughters, Alice and Dorothy. Alice married the Fairford wool merchant John Tame. Of Dorothy more later.

My suspicion, for various reasons, is that John Twynyho may not have married Eleanor Tailboys until after Bosworth, possibly under pressure from other family members, but I could well be wrong. (I have written in my notes: "Through the first marriage of her mother, one of the Staffords of Hook, to Sir Edmund Cheney, Alienore had Cheney half-sisters, so this marriage may have been suggested to John by his niece Edith and her husband Thomas Lynde."

At any rate, it does not seem to have been a very successful marriage. John wrote his will on 29 September, and all Eleanor got was £100 worth of plate and all the personal adornments he had bought her. The residue of the estate went to his 18-year-old surviving daughter Dorothy, whom he also named as sole executrix, with his nephew William Twynyho (Ankarette's younger son) as supervisor to assist her. John died the next day. Dorothy and her uncle William ended up in Chancery owing to a dispute relating to the estate, and I wonder if that might be how she came to Morton's attention, because the next thing we know is that this valuable young heiress has been married off to his nephew Thomas Morton. Thomas seems to have then availed himself of John Twynyho's house and business, since he spent the rest of his life working as a lawyer in Cirencester.

Mostly John Twynyho's widow appears as Eleanor Twynyho in records, but in her will - written in 1501 - she calls herself by her previous married name of Strangeways and makes no reference to John Twynyho at all, not even to include him in prayers.

Just an overnight thought, but could the Woodvilles have harnessed a covert Welsh alliance to hatch a plot by way of revenge for Edgcote where the Welsh, including the Herberts, had suffered terrible losses and EW's father and brother had been captured an executed afterwards? They couldn't get revenge on Warwick because he was dead, but his ally Clarence was still alive ...... H

Marie:

We probably can't lump all the Welsh together, although obviously they would feel a commonality against the English oppressor, and that could always be harnessed. The areas of established Herbert and Vaughan influence would obviously have shared their lords' bitterness about what Warwick and Clarence had done, but at the time of Edgcote Glamorgan and Abergavenny were Warwick's, although you had young Buckingham, married to a Woodville, waiting to take over at Brecon.

And then the complication of the fact that Pembroke had been Jasper Tudor's but in 1469 belonged to Herbert. Where did the loyalties of most of the locals actually lie? Then there's north-west Wales, the area of Tudor origin....

I can quite see Elizabeth Woodville having wanted to avenge herself on Clarence, given she'd lost her father and a teenage brother to that escapade. Similarly William Herbert, given that his father had been executed and his wife Mary had been the Queen's sister, except that after Mary's death the Queen had pretty much dumped him, making him give up Pembroke for the earldom of Huntingdon so she could give Pembroke to her son. Also I'm not really sure how Huntingdon - or the Welsh in general - could have aided in the process of bringing Clarence down. The folk in the lordships of Glamorgan and Abergavenny had had their lord Warwick on the other side in 1469, and in 1478 were looking to Richard. And North Wales really hadn't had an involvement.

Moving forwards, Tudor's time in the Herbert household of course greatly complicates the family's loyalties in 1485 and afterwards. William, the eldest, was Richard's man and had married his daughter. His illegitimate brothers and half-kin the Vaughans of Tretower were also on Richard's side (and indeed rebelled in 1486), but William's younger brother Walter joined his old playmate HT at Milford Haven.

I suspect that Jasper Tudor was actually very popular in Wales, although he'd not been seen in the area for a long time, and that Henry benefited from fond memories of his father and uncle in SW Wales. Little did they realise he was a very different personality altogether.

Hi Hilary,

Re Sir Philip Maunsell, all I've found is the following:

He seems to have been with Jasper Tudor early in Edward's reign (see below).

29 April 1463 - He was attainted. His attainder reads:

And where Philip Mauncell late of Oxwich in Gower in South Wales, esquire, Hopkin ap Rhys late of the parish of Llangynwal in the aforesaid Gower, gentleman, and Lewis ap Rhydderch ap Rhys late of Ystrad-fflur [Strata Florida] in the county of Carmarthen in Wales, monk, have against their faith and allegiance, on 4 March in the first year of the reign of our said sovereign lord [1461], and at various times since, at a place called Dyffryn in Carmarthenshire in South Wales, incited, encouraged and prompted Margaret, late called queen of England, Edward her son, late called prince of Wales, and Jasper, late earl of Pembroke, rebels and enemies to our said sovereign lord, to enter his realm of England with great forces to raise war against his estate within this said realm, to conquer the same from the possession and obedience of our said sovereign lord, and to depose him from his royal estate, crown and dignity, and to destroy his most noble person and subjects.

According to William Worcester, apparently, he was arrested and beheaded after Mortimer's Cross, but the Maunsell family historian, R. G. Maunsell, says there is an extant document signed by Philip Maunsell at Oxwich Castle on 3 April 1461, so Worcester must be wrong about the battle.

23 March 1465  Sir Roger Vaughan (of Tretower) was granted the manors of Oxenwiche, Scurlacastell, Nicholaston, Reynoldeston and Maunsellysfeld in the lordship of Gower in the parts of Wales [etc]... late of Philip Mauncell, esquire, and in the king's hands by virtue of his forfeiture, and by virtue of an Act of Parliament at Westminster, 29 April, 3 Edward IV.... (CPR, p. 426).

As Maunsell had already been attainted, and Vaughan had been granted all his lands, it is not at all likely that he would have been with the Herberts at Edgecote, so that can be ruled out.

The claim that he was captured by Conyers at Chepstow after Tewkesbury and beheaded is in the Maunsell history, but the source is not clear. The author just says, for all his info on Philip M, "See

Patent Rolls and Penrice MSS." ( History of Maunsell or Mansel, Cork, 1903, Appendix 171).

There is no mention of P. Maunsell in the 1467-77 volume of the patent rolls. The Penrice MSS include a lot of Maunsell family papers, so perhaps it is a tradition recorded in there. They are in the National Library of Wales, but the catalogue doesn't itemise the contents:

Penrice and Margam Estate Records

My guess is that Maunsell was with Jasper Tudor again when Tewkesbury was fought, so he would have missed the battle and presumably tried to flee abroad like Jasper and Henry but got caught. I still find the reference to Sir John Conyers rather odd, and I'd really like to know more about the source.

Sorry this post is such a mess - I've had to do a lot of copy & paste and it's messed with the typeface and spacing.

Marie

The Desmond story is questioned, of course. Desmond and Clarence were both openly tried and condemned to death, that's the problem. The suspicion in Desmond's case arose because that trial took place in Ireland, but it sounds as though the death warrant would have to have been sealed by the king in England before anything could happen. Hence the story that Elizabeth stole the Great Seal to do the deed.

Clarence was also condemned openly, in Parliament, and sentence was pronounced. There was a delay, but his death finally came after a deputation from the Commons came before the King in Parliament to ask that sentence be carried out. Grants of Clarence's offices were already organised before the deed was done.

Surely if someone had killed Clarence behind his back, the King wouldn't have been moaning in later years that no one had stopped him having his brother put to death.

I suspect the only plot involved that deputation from the Commons. Its leader, of course, was the Speaker, William Alyngton, and he was a member of the Prince's council - I think according to Hicks he was actually his chamberlain - so he was very probably a Woodville man.

Thanks,

Yes, sorry I got that wrong as well - it is years since I looked at the Twynyhos. It was Ankarette's younger son, William, who married Katherine Solers.

I found this online ages ago:

13 August 1464  Wm Twynyho & Ankaret his wife to John Twynyho their son & Johanna (Jane) his wife daughter of Roger Corbet of Morton & Elizabeth his wife  grant of the manor of Hawkestone (http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2013-01/1357935440)

Alan..as I understand it the continuing refusal comes from the Queen - she has the last word on it because the Abbey is a Royal Peculiar..whether she is acting on advice or not who knows..

And of course the Abbey authorities..can you imagine..Um What Are We Going To Do With The Urn?...awkward.  Might I suggest that when the bones are found to be not who they are supposed to be or even a 17th century hoax that they find somewhere respectful to inter them..they are someone's children after all..and then the empty urn is then shoved into HT's vault although its getting a bit cramped in there I must admit since they added James lst.