anne beauchamp and the knife
anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-12 20:50:19
because the thread...Re: getting back to Richard III
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
marie wrote
Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s article
on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the Smethon
letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see why
she would wish to procure it.
the link
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
council.
richard according to records may not have even been at the tower, but
in kent.
so we are left with lord rivers, whose name sounds very much like lord
richard as the likely candidate as to who actually killed henry vi.
rivers had more to gain with henry's death than richard did. richard
has his bloodline claim to the nobility. rivers was a married into. it
was important that his sister remain queeen, and that his nephew
edward, the future edward v remain in power for his family to maintain
status. richard's status could not be threatened. lord river's could.
moreover, by killing henry vi, rivers would be demonstrating his
support for edward iv. richard's support was never in doubt. the
woodville/rivers clan were converted lancasterians.
lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry vi
via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there until
edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both anne
and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign. jacquetta
as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put edward
on the throne.
jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend to
anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in anne's
possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
another possibility is via the clergy. which of edward's lords
spiritual has contacts/connections to beaulieu abbey? which of them had
faithfully served henry? did anne have any kinship connection to any of
them?
another avenue that anne could have obtained the knife could have been
via richard, possibly via anne, but only once richard became king.
anthony had died weeks before richard's coronation. is this when the
knife was passed on to anne? where was anne when lord rivers was
executed? did she take the knife herself?
and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi? lots of
relics have been faked.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
marie wrote
Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s article
on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the Smethon
letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see why
she would wish to procure it.
the link
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
council.
richard according to records may not have even been at the tower, but
in kent.
so we are left with lord rivers, whose name sounds very much like lord
richard as the likely candidate as to who actually killed henry vi.
rivers had more to gain with henry's death than richard did. richard
has his bloodline claim to the nobility. rivers was a married into. it
was important that his sister remain queeen, and that his nephew
edward, the future edward v remain in power for his family to maintain
status. richard's status could not be threatened. lord river's could.
moreover, by killing henry vi, rivers would be demonstrating his
support for edward iv. richard's support was never in doubt. the
woodville/rivers clan were converted lancasterians.
lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry vi
via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there until
edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both anne
and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign. jacquetta
as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put edward
on the throne.
jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend to
anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in anne's
possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
another possibility is via the clergy. which of edward's lords
spiritual has contacts/connections to beaulieu abbey? which of them had
faithfully served henry? did anne have any kinship connection to any of
them?
another avenue that anne could have obtained the knife could have been
via richard, possibly via anne, but only once richard became king.
anthony had died weeks before richard's coronation. is this when the
knife was passed on to anne? where was anne when lord rivers was
executed? did she take the knife herself?
and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi? lots of
relics have been faked.
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 03:34:47
--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
Um...Jacquetta of Luxembourg was not Henry VI's sister-in-law. She
was his aunt. Her first husband was John, Duke of Bedford, one of the
younger brothers of Henry V. Henry VI was an only child.
Katy
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
Um...Jacquetta of Luxembourg was not Henry VI's sister-in-law. She
was his aunt. Her first husband was John, Duke of Bedford, one of the
younger brothers of Henry V. Henry VI was an only child.
Katy
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 10:00:51
--- In , "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> because the thread...Re: getting back to Richard III
> Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
> was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
>
> marie wrote
> Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s
article
> on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the
Smethon
> letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
> Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
> the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
> would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see
why
> she would wish to procure it.
>
> the link
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
>
> what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
> abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
>
> according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
> rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
> richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at the
Tower?
>
> henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
> council.
Yes, the buck obviously stops with Edward, but as I say, common
tittle-tattle doesn't concern itself with political realities, it
just wants a good story.
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry
vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there
until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
>
> anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both
anne
> and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign.
jacquetta
> as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put
edward
> on the throne.
>
> jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend
to
> anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in
anne's
> possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over to
Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers &
Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated," so
from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly interaction
between herself and Jacquetta. Jacquetta does not reappear at court
after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following her
husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be. We
know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
accounting year of 1464-5. She would not, in that case, have attended
Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next time
we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle. She was not present at
Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
godfather. She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
journey to her Luxembourg-Woodville-backed Burgundian marriage. The
next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with her
daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and this
is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly from
the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed my
saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly let
me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
that would have been very careless.
> and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was donated
by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort to
please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
Marie
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> because the thread...Re: getting back to Richard III
> Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
> was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
>
> marie wrote
> Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s
article
> on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the
Smethon
> letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
> Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
> the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
> would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see
why
> she would wish to procure it.
>
> the link
> http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/anne_beauchamp.htm
>
> what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
> abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
>
> according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
> rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
> richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at the
Tower?
>
> henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
> council.
Yes, the buck obviously stops with Edward, but as I say, common
tittle-tattle doesn't concern itself with political realities, it
just wants a good story.
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry
vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there
until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
>
> anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both
anne
> and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign.
jacquetta
> as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put
edward
> on the throne.
>
> jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend
to
> anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in
anne's
> possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over to
Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers &
Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated," so
from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly interaction
between herself and Jacquetta. Jacquetta does not reappear at court
after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following her
husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be. We
know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
accounting year of 1464-5. She would not, in that case, have attended
Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next time
we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle. She was not present at
Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
godfather. She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
journey to her Luxembourg-Woodville-backed Burgundian marriage. The
next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with her
daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and this
is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly from
the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed my
saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly let
me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
that would have been very careless.
> and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was donated
by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort to
please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 16:15:25
comments interspersed, see below.
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 5:00 AM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> because the thread...Re: getting back to Richard III
> Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
> was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
>
> marie wrote
> Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s
article
> on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the
Smethon
> letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
> Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
> the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
> would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see
why
> she would wish to procure it.
>
> the link
> http://www.susanhig ginbotham. com/anne_ beauchamp. htm
>
> what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
> abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
>
> according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
> rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
> richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at the
Tower?
probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol 1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get it brought to me this weekend.
=====
>
> henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
> council.
Yes, the buck obviously stops with Edward, but as I say, common
tittle-tattle doesn't concern itself with political realities, it
just wants a good story.
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry
vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there
until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
===
apologies to katy..yes, i had the duke of bedford out by a generation. i was writing from the top of my head. the real importance is bedford was extremely close to henry in bloodline and council.
=====
>
> anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both
anne
> and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign.
jacquetta
> as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put
edward
> on the throne.
>
> jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend
to
> anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in
anne's
> possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
=====
I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over to
Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers &
Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated," so
from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly interaction
between herself and Jacquetta.
====
was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to be in the know.
jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her husband, not her.
===
Jacquetta does not reappear at court
after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following her
husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be. We
know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
accounting year of 1464-5.
===
did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis? are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
=====
She would not, in that case, have attended
Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next time
we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
===
she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
==
She was not present at
Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
godfather.
===
she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were named at the churching?
===
She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
===
jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
when phillip was made a widower a second time. the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret was even betrothed to a portuguese noble. he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed. margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
=====
The
next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with her
daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
====
okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
====
Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and this
is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly from
the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed my
saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly let
me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
====
i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross. they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
=====
If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
that would have been very careless.
===
i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it. the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of depression.
===
> and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was donated
by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort to
please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
===
i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on this command and stikked henry with a knife.
poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his family's status.
===
to me the jacquetta theory is least likely, the priest theory more likely, and that anne recieved the knife after lord scales's death most likely. there are probably other scenarios..i was simply writing from the top of my head since you asked.
roslyn
Marie
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 5:00 AM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, "fayreroze"
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> because the thread...Re: getting back to Richard III
> Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:22 PM
> was getting so convoluted i thought it best to begin this thread.
>
> marie wrote
> Second, thanks to Roslyn for the link to Susan Higginbotham' s
article
> on Anne Beauchamp. It is excellent, and I was unaware of the
Smethon
> letter, though there were no other surprises. That sounds like the
> Countess, still up to tricks. But could I ask Roslyn who she thinks
> the Countess would have asked for the murder weapon, and how she
> would know who to ask? That is what puzzled me; I could quite see
why
> she would wish to procure it.
>
> the link
> http://www.susanhig ginbotham. com/anne_ beauchamp. htm
>
> what we do know is anne on or about april 14, 1471 went to beaulieu
> abbey for sanctuary. henry was killed on or about may 21st 1471.
>
> according to halstead, lord scales, aka anthony woodville aks lord
> rivers was at the tower where henry died. halstead says the rumours
> richard killed henry began about 30 years later..or about 1501.
Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at the
Tower?
probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol 1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get it brought to me this weekend.
=====
>
> henry was most likely killed upon the orders of edward iv and his
> council.
Yes, the buck obviously stops with Edward, but as I say, common
tittle-tattle doesn't concern itself with political realities, it
just wants a good story.
> lord rivers's mother was jacquetta, former sister in law to henry
vi
> via her first marriage to the duke of bedford. jacquetta had been
> within the inner circle of henry vi's court and remained there
until
> edward took the throne by conquest in 1461.
===
apologies to katy..yes, i had the duke of bedford out by a generation. i was writing from the top of my head. the real importance is bedford was extremely close to henry in bloodline and council.
=====
>
> anne had also been within the inner court circle of henry vi. both
anne
> and jacquetta would have interacted during edward iv's reign.
jacquetta
> as e4's mother in law, and anne as the wife of the man who put
edward
> on the throne.
>
> jacquetta was a powerful woman and could likely have been a friend
to
> anne. this is one possibility as to how the knife came to be in
anne's
> possession. jacquetta died in 1472.
=====
I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over to
Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers &
Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated," so
from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly interaction
between herself and Jacquetta.
====
was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to be in the know.
jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her husband, not her.
===
Jacquetta does not reappear at court
after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following her
husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be. We
know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
accounting year of 1464-5.
===
did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis? are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
=====
She would not, in that case, have attended
Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next time
we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
===
she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
==
She was not present at
Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
godfather.
===
she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were named at the churching?
===
She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
===
jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
when phillip was made a widower a second time. the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret was even betrothed to a portuguese noble. he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed. margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
=====
The
next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with her
daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
====
okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
====
Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and this
is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly from
the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed my
saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly let
me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
====
i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross. they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
=====
If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
that would have been very careless.
===
i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it. the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of depression.
===
> and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was donated
by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort to
please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
===
i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on this command and stikked henry with a knife.
poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his family's status.
===
to me the jacquetta theory is least likely, the priest theory more likely, and that anne recieved the knife after lord scales's death most likely. there are probably other scenarios..i was simply writing from the top of my head since you asked.
roslyn
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 18:12:21
--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below.
> --- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the
knife
> To:
> Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at
the
> Tower?
> probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
it brought to me this weekend.
If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get it
posted specially.
> =====
> =====
> I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
> Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over
to
> Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers
&
> Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated,"
so
> from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
interaction
> between herself and Jacquetta.
> ====
> was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant
for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to
be in the know.
> jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
husband, not her.
It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
It is described in the Paston Letters:-
First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on Sandwich
by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
received in Kent."
Sandwich being in Kent.
Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords traitors,
for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said that
his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V, and
sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and that
it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
wise."
> ===
> Jacquetta does not reappear at court
> after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
> Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following
her
> husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be.
We
> know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
> accounting year of 1464-5.
> ===
> did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis?
are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
I expect Anne had visitors, but they would have been from the
neighbouring north Yorkshire families, like the Scropes and
FitzHughs. Middleham is a long way north, and away from the main
north-south road, up in the Yorkshire Dales. It is 180 miles from
Grafton. The only shrine at Middleham was St Alkelda's holy well,
which was of purely local interest.
> =====
> She would not, in that case, have attended
> Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next
time
> we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
> enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
> ===
> she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
Um. Henry VI is still alive. This is all just to demonstrate her lack
of opportunity and inclination for friendly relations with Jacquetta.
> ==
> She was not present at
> Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
> godfather.
> ===
> she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were
named at the churching?
There would have been lots. Churchings were big ladies' occasions.
But Anne would have been one of the chief ones, being the premier
countess, so I think she would have been mentioned.
> ===
> She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
> journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> ===
> jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> when phillip was made a widower a second time.
You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who had
once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick was
working for an alliance with France.
the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of
his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret
was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
noble).
he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed.
margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't
make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
policy was acute and nasty.
> =====
>
> The
> next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
her
> daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> ====
> okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take that
as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
> ====
>
> Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and
this
> is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly
from
> the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
> says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed
my
> saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly
let
> me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
> ====
> i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the
mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was
a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the
weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the
spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross.
they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic
that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be
done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have
even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
> =====
>
> If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
> back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
> that would have been very careless.
> ===
> i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the
killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it.
This could not be bragged about. This murder was absolutely secret,
and the official version was that Henry had died of natural causes.
Any bragging, I suggest, and the murderer would have been next on the
hit list, dumped in the Thames in a sackful of stones or something.
This is why I cannot conceive of anybody approaching the man about it
openly, even if -somehow - they knew who it was.
the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of
depression.
> ===
>
> > and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
>
> I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was
donated
> by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
> someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort
to
> please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
> ===
> i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who
killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was
decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on
this command and stikked henry with a knife.
> poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of
his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and
ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his
family's status.
That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
Marie
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below.
> --- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the
knife
> To:
> Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at
the
> Tower?
> probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
it brought to me this weekend.
If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get it
posted specially.
> =====
> =====
> I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
> Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over
to
> Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers
&
> Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated,"
so
> from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
interaction
> between herself and Jacquetta.
> ====
> was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant
for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to
be in the know.
> jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
husband, not her.
It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
It is described in the Paston Letters:-
First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on Sandwich
by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
received in Kent."
Sandwich being in Kent.
Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords traitors,
for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said that
his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V, and
sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and that
it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
wise."
> ===
> Jacquetta does not reappear at court
> after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
> Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following
her
> husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be.
We
> know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
> accounting year of 1464-5.
> ===
> did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis?
are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
I expect Anne had visitors, but they would have been from the
neighbouring north Yorkshire families, like the Scropes and
FitzHughs. Middleham is a long way north, and away from the main
north-south road, up in the Yorkshire Dales. It is 180 miles from
Grafton. The only shrine at Middleham was St Alkelda's holy well,
which was of purely local interest.
> =====
> She would not, in that case, have attended
> Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next
time
> we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
> enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
> ===
> she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
Um. Henry VI is still alive. This is all just to demonstrate her lack
of opportunity and inclination for friendly relations with Jacquetta.
> ==
> She was not present at
> Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
> godfather.
> ===
> she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were
named at the churching?
There would have been lots. Churchings were big ladies' occasions.
But Anne would have been one of the chief ones, being the premier
countess, so I think she would have been mentioned.
> ===
> She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
> journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> ===
> jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> when phillip was made a widower a second time.
You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who had
once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick was
working for an alliance with France.
the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of
his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret
was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
noble).
he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed.
margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't
make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
policy was acute and nasty.
> =====
>
> The
> next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
her
> daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> ====
> okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take that
as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
> ====
>
> Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and
this
> is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly
from
> the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
> says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed
my
> saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly
let
> me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
> ====
> i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the
mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was
a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the
weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the
spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross.
they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic
that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be
done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have
even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
> =====
>
> If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
> back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
> that would have been very careless.
> ===
> i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the
killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it.
This could not be bragged about. This murder was absolutely secret,
and the official version was that Henry had died of natural causes.
Any bragging, I suggest, and the murderer would have been next on the
hit list, dumped in the Thames in a sackful of stones or something.
This is why I cannot conceive of anybody approaching the man about it
openly, even if -somehow - they knew who it was.
the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of
depression.
> ===
>
> > and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
>
> I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was
donated
> by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
> someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort
to
> please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
> ===
> i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who
killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was
decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on
this command and stikked henry with a knife.
> poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of
his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and
ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his
family's status.
That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 18:40:45
--- In , mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@...> wrote: <snipped>
>.
>
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
> dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
> likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
> about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
>
> Marie
>
I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other man
of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
scaffold.
If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it and
(at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming that
Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If you
are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is the
knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
Brian W
<no_reply@...> wrote: <snipped>
>.
>
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
> dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
> likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
> about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
>
> Marie
>
I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other man
of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
scaffold.
If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it and
(at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming that
Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If you
are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is the
knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
Brian W
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-13 19:09:44
--- In , "Brian Wainwright"
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote: <snipped>
> >.
> >
> > That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's
no
> > dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> > shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all;
more
> > likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early
rumours
> > about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did
it.
> >
> > We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> > business is bound to be speculation.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
> I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other
man
> of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
> even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
> scaffold.
>
> If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it
and
> (at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
>
> There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming
that
> Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
> Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
>
> As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If
you
> are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is
the
> knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
> King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
> suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
>
> Brian W
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Brian. Not only does it get
over all the difficulties about accessing the real murder weapon but
it ties in absolutely with the impression I've gained of the
Countess' personality. She could argue a black dog white, as my old
mother would say.
Marie
<wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003
> <no_reply@> wrote: <snipped>
> >.
> >
> > That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's
no
> > dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> > shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all;
more
> > likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early
rumours
> > about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did
it.
> >
> > We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> > business is bound to be speculation.
> >
> > Marie
> >
>
> I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other
man
> of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
> even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
> scaffold.
>
> If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it
and
> (at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
>
> There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming
that
> Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
> Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
>
> As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If
you
> are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is
the
> knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
> King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
> suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
>
> Brian W
I think you've hit the nail on the head, Brian. Not only does it get
over all the difficulties about accessing the real murder weapon but
it ties in absolutely with the impression I've gained of the
Countess' personality. She could argue a black dog white, as my old
mother would say.
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-14 01:01:17
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:
From: Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 1:40 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@.. .> wrote: <snipped>
>.
>
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
> dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
> likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
> about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
>
> Marie
>
I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other man
of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
scaffold.
perhaps a better choice of word would have been assassin. if the killing was to be done in secrecy vs public. henry wasn't murdered, per se, but he was violently killed at king and council's edict. this execution was passed off as an untimely natural death to the general public. henry wasn't beheaded or killed in any of the other typically grotesque methods of the day. he was "stikked with a knife" according to gossip/rumour 30 years later.
If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it and
(at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming that
Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If you
are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is the
knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
===
if you re-read my post i think you will find that i stated my concerns that such a knife might really exist..i.e faked relic.
roslyn
Brian W
From: Brian Wainwright <wainwright.brian@...>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 1:40 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, mariewalsh2003
<no_reply@.. .> wrote: <snipped>
>.
>
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
> dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
> shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
> likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
> about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
>
> Marie
>
I think it's a million to one against Rivers, Richard, or any other man
of birth acting as executioner, because that role was seen as 'low'
even dishonourable, which is why they usually wore masks on the
scaffold.
perhaps a better choice of word would have been assassin. if the killing was to be done in secrecy vs public. henry wasn't murdered, per se, but he was violently killed at king and council's edict. this execution was passed off as an untimely natural death to the general public. henry wasn't beheaded or killed in any of the other typically grotesque methods of the day. he was "stikked with a knife" according to gossip/rumour 30 years later.
If Henry VI was killed there were executioners available to do it and
(at most) nobles might have been there as witnesses.
There was propaganda at the time of Charles I's execution claiming that
Oliver Cromwell acted as executioner - I regard claims that it was
Richard (or any other noble) as similar party political BS.
As for the knife, I don't think folks are being cynical enough. If you
are Anne, Countess of Warwick, and you say (circa 1486) 'Here is the
knife that killed Henry VI.' who is going to question you? Only the
King or maybe Margaret Beaufort, and they wouldn't because it would
suit their party line. Any old dagger would do.
===
if you re-read my post i think you will find that i stated my concerns that such a knife might really exist..i.e faked relic.
roslyn
Brian W
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-14 03:19:58
comments interspersed see below
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 1:12 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, fayre rose
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below.
> --- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
> Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the
knife
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at
the
> Tower?
> probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
it brought to me this weekend.
If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get it
posted specially.
=====
just off the phone with my spouse. turns out i have vol 1 here. vol 2 is with him. so..halstead vol 1. pg 217 cites fabyan p662 as the source that richard stikked henry with a knife.
> =====
> I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
> Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over
to
> Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers
&
> Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated,"
so
> from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
interaction
> between herself and Jacquetta.
> ====
> was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant
for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to
be in the know.
> jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
husband, not her.
It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
It is described in the Paston Letters:-
First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on Sandwich
by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
received in Kent."
Sandwich being in Kent.
Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords traitors,
for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said that
his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V, and
sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and that
it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
wise."
===
right so the men folk were dressing down the upstarts. while women of the era were not often involved in such petty political events. anne and jacquetta would still be in the same social circles. at the very least they had a polite acquaintance. they may have also sat about discussing what blowhards their husbands were. she may have even given jacquetta dressing down.
> ===
> Jacquetta does not reappear at court
> after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
> Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following
her
> husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be.
We
> know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
> accounting year of 1464-5.
> ===
> did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis?
are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
I expect Anne had visitors, but they would have been from the
neighbouring north Yorkshire families, like the Scropes and
FitzHughs. Middleham is a long way north, and away from the main
north-south road, up in the Yorkshire Dales. It is 180 miles from
Grafton. The only shrine at Middleham was St Alkelda's holy well,
which was of purely local interest.
> =====
> She would not, in that case, have attended
> Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next
time
> we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
> enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
> ===
> she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
Um. Henry VI is still alive. This is all just to demonstrate her lack
of opportunity and inclination for friendly relations with Jacquetta.
-----yes, my error definitely. not enough coffee as i read through your list of couldn't have happened.
====
> ==
> She was not present at
> Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
> godfather.
> ===
> she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were
named at the churching?
There would have been lots. Churchings were big ladies' occasions.
But Anne would have been one of the chief ones, being the premier
countess, so I think she would have been mentioned.
> ===
> She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
> journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> ===
> jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> when phillip was made a widower a second time.
You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who had
once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick was
working for an alliance with France.
===
yes, i mixed up the burgundian father and son, but the 1454 negotiations were for one of richard of york's unmarried daughters. so we both erred there, unless you have a source that specifically names margaret over elizabeth. anne was married in 1447 to henry de holand. so she would have been off the marriage market. anne and henry didn't separate until 1464 and divorced in 1472. perhaps you confused margaret and anne at the 1465 negotiations , but anne was definitely not available in 1454.
=====
the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of
his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret
was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
noble).
he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed.
margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't
make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
policy was acute and nasty.
----haven't researched this so i can't speak to it.
> =====
>
> The
> next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
her
> daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> ====
> okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take that
as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
---we really can't go with anything is a given. we can go with strong opinion. why would you think i had jacquetta *following* anne about. they may have written each other..and they may have hated each other. until someone finds a contemporary record that indicates or states the relationship of anne and jacquetta..it is all conjecture and theory.
> ====
>
> Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and
this
> is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly
from
> the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
> says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed
my
> saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly
let
> me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
> ====
> i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the
mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was
a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the
weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the
spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross.
they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic
that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be
done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have
even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
> =====
>
> If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
> back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
> that would have been very careless.
> ===
> i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the
killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it.
This could not be bragged about. This murder was absolutely secret,
====this murder could be bragged about in the right circles..the natural causes story was for the masses..not the select few who knew..as in the kings council.
======
and the official version was that Henry had died of natural causes.
Any bragging, I suggest, and the murderer would have been next on the
hit list, dumped in the Thames in a sackful of stones or something.
This is why I cannot conceive of anybody approaching the man about it
openly, even if -somehow - they knew who it was.
the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of
depression.
> ===
>
> > and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
>
> I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was
donated
> by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
> someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort
to
> please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
> ===
> i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who
killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was
decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on
this command and stikked henry with a knife.
> poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of
his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and
ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his
family's status.
That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
We're all writing off the top of our heads.
i think my definition and your definition of writing off the top of my head differs. writing from the top of my head does not include looking up sources and/or citing them..it means i'm writing completely from memory. ergo the minor errors i've been making. again apologies. no problem making corrections here.
And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
no kidding!! anything beyond a primary source document is speculation. and even those can be full of gossip/rumour and innuendo.
Marie
--- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
To:
Received: Wednesday, August 13, 2008, 1:12 PM
--- In richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com, fayre rose
<fayreroze@. ..> wrote:
>
> comments interspersed, see below.
> --- On Wed, 8/13/08, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@yahoogroup s.com>
> Subject: Re: anne beauchamp and the
knife
> To: richardiiisocietyfo rum@yahoogroups. com
> Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at
the
> Tower?
> probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
it brought to me this weekend.
If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get it
posted specially.
=====
just off the phone with my spouse. turns out i have vol 1 here. vol 2 is with him. so..halstead vol 1. pg 217 cites fabyan p662 as the source that richard stikked henry with a knife.
> =====
> I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife and
> Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone over
to
> Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when Rivers
&
> Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick and "berated,"
so
> from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
interaction
> between herself and Jacquetta.
> ====
> was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's penchant
for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only to
be in the know.
> jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
husband, not her.
It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
It is described in the Paston Letters:-
First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on Sandwich
by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
received in Kent."
Sandwich being in Kent.
Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords traitors,
for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said that
his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V, and
sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and that
it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
wise."
===
right so the men folk were dressing down the upstarts. while women of the era were not often involved in such petty political events. anne and jacquetta would still be in the same social circles. at the very least they had a polite acquaintance. they may have also sat about discussing what blowhards their husbands were. she may have even given jacquetta dressing down.
> ===
> Jacquetta does not reappear at court
> after Henry VI's deposition until her daughter's marriage to King
> Edward in 1464, by which time the Countess had given up following
her
> husband around, having presumably decided the son was never to be.
We
> know, for instance, that she stayed at Middleham throughout the
> accounting year of 1464-5.
> ===
> did anne have visitors. how far is middleham from grafton regis?
are there any shrines that pilgrims might visit?
I expect Anne had visitors, but they would have been from the
neighbouring north Yorkshire families, like the Scropes and
FitzHughs. Middleham is a long way north, and away from the main
north-south road, up in the Yorkshire Dales. It is 180 miles from
Grafton. The only shrine at Middleham was St Alkelda's holy well,
which was of purely local interest.
> =====
> She would not, in that case, have attended
> Elizabeth Woodville's coronation, but I can check this. The next
time
> we glimpse her it is again in Yorkshire, at Archbishop Neville's
> enthroinzaetion feast at Cawood Castle.
> ===
> she could have asked for the knife at this point in time.
Um. Henry VI is still alive. This is all just to demonstrate her lack
of opportunity and inclination for friendly relations with Jacquetta.
-----yes, my error definitely. not enough coffee as i read through your list of couldn't have happened.
====
> ==
> She was not present at
> Princess Elizabeth's churching, though her husband had been the
> godfather.
> ===
> she is not recorded as being at the churching. how many wives were
named at the churching?
There would have been lots. Churchings were big ladies' occasions.
But Anne would have been one of the chief ones, being the premier
countess, so I think she would have been mentioned.
> ===
> She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
> journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> ===
> jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> when phillip was made a widower a second time.
You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who had
once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick was
working for an alliance with France.
===
yes, i mixed up the burgundian father and son, but the 1454 negotiations were for one of richard of york's unmarried daughters. so we both erred there, unless you have a source that specifically names margaret over elizabeth. anne was married in 1447 to henry de holand. so she would have been off the marriage market. anne and henry didn't separate until 1464 and divorced in 1472. perhaps you confused margaret and anne at the 1465 negotiations , but anne was definitely not available in 1454.
=====
the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two of
his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations. margaret
was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
noble).
he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he failed.
margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage doesn't
make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
policy was acute and nasty.
----haven't researched this so i can't speak to it.
> =====
>
> The
> next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
her
> daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> ====
> okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take that
as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
---we really can't go with anything is a given. we can go with strong opinion. why would you think i had jacquetta *following* anne about. they may have written each other..and they may have hated each other. until someone finds a contemporary record that indicates or states the relationship of anne and jacquetta..it is all conjecture and theory.
> ====
>
> Also, I'm not sure how this works, whoever the murderer was, and
this
> is what bothers me about the idea that she obtained it directly
from
> the murderer. Countess approaches murderer, or murderer's mum, and
> says "Hallo. I understand you/ your son were the person who killed
my
> saintly old friend Henry VI in cold blood. You couldn't possibly
let
> me have the murder weapon as a keepsake, could you?"
> ====
> i doubt strongly, anne approached the murderer. however, the
mindset in those days was different than ours. no one thought h6 was
a bad sort, he was considered good/kind, saintly. so asking for the
weapon that ended his life would be almost equal for asking for the
spear the pierced christ, or the nails that held him to the cross.
they are relics, and anne would have considered the knife a relic
that killed her sainted friend. the request certainly wouldn't be
done lighthearted and casually as in a monty python skit. it may have
even required an intermediary such as a priest to make the request.
> =====
>
> If a third party obtained it for her, it only pushes this problem
> back one, doesn't it? unless the murder weapon was discarded, but
> that would have been very careless.
> ===
> i doubt the weapon would be discarded. the individual who did the
killing would probably had some sort of bragging rights over it.
This could not be bragged about. This murder was absolutely secret,
====this murder could be bragged about in the right circles..the natural causes story was for the masses..not the select few who knew..as in the kings council.
======
and the official version was that Henry had died of natural causes.
Any bragging, I suggest, and the murderer would have been next on the
hit list, dumped in the Thames in a sackful of stones or something.
This is why I cannot conceive of anybody approaching the man about it
openly, even if -somehow - they knew who it was.
the offical version fed to the masses would be..he died of
depression.
> ===
>
> > and finally..is the knife really the knife that killed henry vi?
>
> I have serious doubts, but I think it is very possible it was
donated
> by the Countess, and that she thought it was genuine. Or perhaps
> someone else donated it to Caversham in her lifetime, in an effort
to
> please her. Perhaps it was even the repentant murderer. . . .
> ===
> i doubt the "murderer" would be repentant. the individual who
killed henry was an executioner. he didn't sneak up and do it. it was
decided by council that henry must die. woodville then followed up on
this command and stikked henry with a knife.
> poor fellow was probably lamenting and weeping over the loss of
his "supposed" son and kingdom. lord rivers simply strode in and
ended henry's misery and the threat to e4, e5 and most of all his
family's status.
That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
We're all writing off the top of our heads.
i think my definition and your definition of writing off the top of my head differs. writing from the top of my head does not include looking up sources and/or citing them..it means i'm writing completely from memory. ergo the minor errors i've been making. again apologies. no problem making corrections here.
And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
no kidding!! anything beyond a primary source document is speculation. and even those can be full of gossip/rumour and innuendo.
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-15 14:31:16
> > She failed to come down to see Margaret of York off on her
> > journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> > ===
> > jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
> margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
> obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> > when phillip was made a widower a second time.
>
> You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who
had
> once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
> Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick
was
> working for an alliance with France.
> ===
> yes, i mixed up the burgundian father and son, but the 1454
negotiations were for one of richard of york's unmarried daughters.
so we both erred there, unless you have a source that specifically
names margaret over elizabeth. anne was married in 1447 to henry de
holand. so she would have been off the marriage market. anne and
henry didn't separate until 1464 and divorced in 1472. perhaps you
confused margaret and anne at the 1465 negotiations , but anne
was definitely not available in 1454.
It comes from one of the French-language chronicles - I think it
might be Monstrelet. I did read it many years ago. It makes it sound
as though it was immediately before Charles' marriage to Isabel of
Bourbon but doesn't say what year it was. But it specifies the
daughter very clearly as being the one who later married the Duke of
Exeter.
Some historians place this event before Charles' betrothal to
Catherine of France, when York was certainly trying to organise
continental marriages for Edward and Edmund in tandem with the
marriage alliance between Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou.
Alternatively, York might have tried for this match after Catherine's
death but before Anne's marriage to Exeter was consummated. A
childhood marriage could be repudiated by the "bride" or "groom" when
they reached the age of consent. Remember, this is how Margaret
Beaufort came to be able to marry Edmund Tudor - by repudiating her
childhood marriage to John de la Pole.
> =====
>
> the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
> like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two
of
> his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations.
margaret
> was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
>
> No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
> word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
> betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
> been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
> now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
> Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
> noble).
> he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
> marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
> sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he
failed.
> margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> > because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage
doesn't
> make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
> for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
>
> I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
> trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
> the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
> policy was acute and nasty.
> ----haven't researched this so i can't speak to it.
>
> > =====
> >
> > The
> > next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
> her
> > daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> > ====
> > okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
> do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
>
> She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take
that
> as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
> Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
> ---we really can't go with anything is a given. we can go with
strong opinion. why would you think i had jacquetta *following* anne
about. they may have written each other..and they may have hated each
other. until someone finds a contemporary record that indicates or
states the relationship of anne and jacquetta..it is all conjecture
and theory.
Sorry, silly me. I thought I had amply demonstrated that the two
women had no known links . It is not for me to prove they didn't have
any unknown ones, it would be for you, if you really wished to
propose such a theory, to bring some evidence in support of it.
In the battle of Edgcote Anne lost a nephew (Henry Latimer) and a
nephew-in-law (Oliver Dudley, husband of Henry L's sister Katherine),
and these young men were both buried in the Beauchamp Chapel at
Warwick. Henry's grieving mother, Anne's half-sister Elizabeth, had
probably lived at Warwick since her husband had lost his reason in
the 1450s and Warwick had been given charge of his affairs. So Anne's
own birth family had suffered in Warwick's cause.
And as soon as Warwick won control after Edgcote, witchcraft charges
were brought against Jacquetta. The main accuser was Thomas Wake of
Blisworth. Guess who Anne's grieving half-sister Elizabeth Latimer
married next? Yes indeed: Thomas Wake of Blisworth.
These kind of connections certainly don't hint to me at a strong bond
of friendship between Anne Beauchamp and Jacquetta of Luxembourg.
(Oh, and of course, I forgot one of the Countess' chief jaunts in the
1460s - over to Calais for Isabel's wedding to Clarence.)
>
> And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
> no kidding!! anything beyond a primary source document is
speculation. and even those can be full of gossip/rumour and innuendo.
Chronicles can be full of such, and Acts of Attainder and that sort
of stuff contain a strong propaganda element. But there are other
sorts of source documents which ground us a bit more - payments,
enfeoffments, disputes at law, wills, etc.
Marie
> > journey to her Luxembourg-Woodvill e-backed Burgundian marriage.
> > ===
> > jacquetta was a cousin to the burgundian royals. but so was
> margaret. margaret had been a choice of phillips in 1454, but was
> obliged to marry isabella of burbon because of a treaty.
> > when phillip was made a widower a second time.
>
> You mean Charles. Anyway, it is Margaret's elder sister Anne who
had
> once been proposed as a bride for Charles. My point is that the
> Wooodvilles were driving the Burgundian alliance, whilst Warwick
was
> working for an alliance with France.
> ===
> yes, i mixed up the burgundian father and son, but the 1454
negotiations were for one of richard of york's unmarried daughters.
so we both erred there, unless you have a source that specifically
names margaret over elizabeth. anne was married in 1447 to henry de
holand. so she would have been off the marriage market. anne and
henry didn't separate until 1464 and divorced in 1472. perhaps you
confused margaret and anne at the 1465 negotiations , but anne
was definitely not available in 1454.
It comes from one of the French-language chronicles - I think it
might be Monstrelet. I did read it many years ago. It makes it sound
as though it was immediately before Charles' marriage to Isabel of
Bourbon but doesn't say what year it was. But it specifies the
daughter very clearly as being the one who later married the Duke of
Exeter.
Some historians place this event before Charles' betrothal to
Catherine of France, when York was certainly trying to organise
continental marriages for Edward and Edmund in tandem with the
marriage alliance between Henry VI and Margaret of Anjou.
Alternatively, York might have tried for this match after Catherine's
death but before Anne's marriage to Exeter was consummated. A
childhood marriage could be repudiated by the "bride" or "groom" when
they reached the age of consent. Remember, this is how Margaret
Beaufort came to be able to marry Edmund Tudor - by repudiating her
childhood marriage to John de la Pole.
> =====
>
> the negotiations began for him to marry margaret. louis xi didn't
> like this, and tried to interupt the negotiations by offering two
of
> his children to the anglo-burgundians marriage negotiations.
margaret
> was even betrothed to a portuguese noble.
>
> No actually. Her biographer, Christine Weightman, uses the
> word 'betrothed' but there never seems to have been a formal
> betrothal, although he was confident enough of the outcome to have
> been designing the ring. We can actually be pretty sure there were
> now vows exchanged, as this should have shown up in Margaret and
> Charles' dispensation (Charles being a cousin of said Portuguese
> noble).
> he died. and margaret then again became available to the burgundian
> marriage market. louis xi even tried to prevent the marriage by
> sending ships to intercept margaret's arrival in burgundy. he
failed.
> margaret and phillip were married in bruges.
> > because lord scales negotiated the originally the marriage
doesn't
> make it a woodville motivated marriage. phillip wanted the marriage
> for over a decade. other politcial forces delayed the marriage.
>
> I know well there were other political considerations, mainly the
> trading links, but the Woodvilles were helping drive this home, and
> the split between the Woodvilles and Anne's husband over foreign
> policy was acute and nasty.
> ----haven't researched this so i can't speak to it.
>
> > =====
> >
> > The
> > next I know of her is in March 1470, when she was at Warwick with
> her
> > daughters and they fled with her husband to France.
> > ====
> > okay, so the records are scant regarding anne's whereabouts, what
> do the records say for jacquetta? where was she?
>
> She would have been nowhere near Yorkshire, I think we can take
that
> as a given. I really think trying to have the Queen's mother follow
> Anne around the far-flung parts of the kingdom is a non-starter.
> ---we really can't go with anything is a given. we can go with
strong opinion. why would you think i had jacquetta *following* anne
about. they may have written each other..and they may have hated each
other. until someone finds a contemporary record that indicates or
states the relationship of anne and jacquetta..it is all conjecture
and theory.
Sorry, silly me. I thought I had amply demonstrated that the two
women had no known links . It is not for me to prove they didn't have
any unknown ones, it would be for you, if you really wished to
propose such a theory, to bring some evidence in support of it.
In the battle of Edgcote Anne lost a nephew (Henry Latimer) and a
nephew-in-law (Oliver Dudley, husband of Henry L's sister Katherine),
and these young men were both buried in the Beauchamp Chapel at
Warwick. Henry's grieving mother, Anne's half-sister Elizabeth, had
probably lived at Warwick since her husband had lost his reason in
the 1450s and Warwick had been given charge of his affairs. So Anne's
own birth family had suffered in Warwick's cause.
And as soon as Warwick won control after Edgcote, witchcraft charges
were brought against Jacquetta. The main accuser was Thomas Wake of
Blisworth. Guess who Anne's grieving half-sister Elizabeth Latimer
married next? Yes indeed: Thomas Wake of Blisworth.
These kind of connections certainly don't hint to me at a strong bond
of friendship between Anne Beauchamp and Jacquetta of Luxembourg.
(Oh, and of course, I forgot one of the Countess' chief jaunts in the
1460s - over to Calais for Isabel's wedding to Clarence.)
>
> And this particular
> business is bound to be speculation.
> no kidding!! anything beyond a primary source document is
speculation. and even those can be full of gossip/rumour and innuendo.
Chronicles can be full of such, and Acts of Attainder and that sort
of stuff contain a strong propaganda element. But there are other
sorts of source documents which ground us a bit more - payments,
enfeoffments, disputes at law, wills, etc.
Marie
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-15 19:43:13
> > Does Halstead give a source for her statement that Rivers was at
> the
> > Tower?
> > probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
> 1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
> it brought to me this weekend.
>
> If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get
it
> posted specially.
> =====
> just off the phone with my spouse. turns out i have vol 1 here. vol
2 is with him. so..halstead vol 1. pg 217 cites fabyan p662 as the
source that richard stikked henry with a knife.
Thanks for that. But no mention of Rivers being there?
Marie
> > =====
> > I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife
and
> > Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> > evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone
over
> to
> > Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when
Rivers
> &
> > Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick
and "berated,"
> so
> > from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
> interaction
> > between herself and Jacquetta.
> > ====
> > was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's
penchant
> for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
> overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only
to
> be in the know.
> > jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
> bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
> husband, not her.
>
> It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
> It is described in the Paston Letters:-
> First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
> son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on
Sandwich
> by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
> and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
> received in Kent."
> Sandwich being in Kent.
> Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
> brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
> there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
> that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords
traitors,
> for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
> found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said
that
> his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V,
and
> sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and
that
> it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
> King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
> Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
> wise."
> ===
> right so the men folk were dressing down the upstarts. while women
of the era were not often involved in such petty political events.
anne and jacquetta would still be in the same social circles. at the
very least they had a polite acquaintance. they may have also sat
about discussing what blowhards their husbands were. she may have
even given jacquetta dressing down.
Read again. "The Duchess" referred to is surely Jacquetta. In other
words, Jacquetta was either left at Sandwich (in the county of Kent),
or kdnapped only very briefly. She and the Countess were on opposite
sides of the Dover Straits without telephones.
Marie
>
> the
> > Tower?
> > probably, i didn't write it down as i own the book. it was in vol
> 1, and that book right now is 400 miles away. i'll see if i can get
> it brought to me this weekend.
>
> If someone is coming to visit, that would be lovely, but don't get
it
> posted specially.
> =====
> just off the phone with my spouse. turns out i have vol 1 here. vol
2 is with him. so..halstead vol 1. pg 217 cites fabyan p662 as the
source that richard stikked henry with a knife.
Thanks for that. But no mention of Rivers being there?
Marie
> > =====
> > I would actually take some persuading that the Kingmaker's wife
and
> > Elizabeth Woodville's mother were friends in 1471/2. There is no
> > evidence I know of that they ever were. The Countess had gone
over
> to
> > Calais with her husband in May 1457, and she was there when
Rivers
> &
> > Scales were brought across from Sandwich by Warwick
and "berated,"
> so
> > from 1457 at least there was no opportunity for friendly
> interaction
> > between herself and Jacquetta.
> > ====
> > was anne part of the berating party? given the woodville's
penchant
> for cosying up...do you not think that jacquetta would have made
> overatures, or even worked harder at being close to anne, if only
to
> be in the know.
> > jacquetta's husband was the person of low rank. jacquetta had
> bloodline. she would be above the dressing down. it was for her
> husband, not her.
>
> It was a men-only affair, and Jacquetta was apparently left behind.
> It is described in the Paston Letters:-
> First letter (undated): ". . . . the Lord Rivers, Sir Anthony his
> son, and others have won Calais by a feeble assault made on
Sandwich
> by Dinham, squire, with the number of 800 men, on Tuesday between 4
> and 5 at clock in the morning. But my Lady Duchess is still again
> received in Kent."
> Sandwich being in Kent.
> Second letter, 28th Jan 1460: "As for tidings, my lord Rivers was
> brought to Calais, and before the lords, with 8 score torches, and
> there my Lord of Salisbury [be]rated him, calling him knave's son
> that he should be so rude to call him and these other lords
traitors,
> for they shall be found the King's true liegemen when he should be
> found a traitor, etc. And my Lord of Warwick rated him, and said
that
> his father was but a squire and brought up with King Henry the V,
and
> sithen [since] himself made by marriage, and also made lord, and
that
> it was not his part to have sucg language of lords being of the
> King's blood. And my Lord of March rated him in like wise. And Sir
> Anthony was rated for his language of [ie by] all 4 lords in like
> wise."
> ===
> right so the men folk were dressing down the upstarts. while women
of the era were not often involved in such petty political events.
anne and jacquetta would still be in the same social circles. at the
very least they had a polite acquaintance. they may have also sat
about discussing what blowhards their husbands were. she may have
even given jacquetta dressing down.
Read again. "The Duchess" referred to is surely Jacquetta. In other
words, Jacquetta was either left at Sandwich (in the county of Kent),
or kdnapped only very briefly. She and the Countess were on opposite
sides of the Dover Straits without telephones.
Marie
>
Re: anne beauchamp and the knife
2008-08-22 07:43:09
Marie wrote:
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
Carol responds:
I agree with you for the most part. However, we do know that John,
Lord Dudley was Constable of the Tower. It was his duty to take care
of the prisoners and, unless I'm mistaken, to arrange for their
execution. He would not, I agree, have killed Henry VI himself.
Executioners were not lords. (I have the dubious distinction of being
descended from the executioner of Charles I.)
And while it's possible that Henry was killed with a knife, that seems
unlikely given that Edward wanted it to appear that he died of "pure
displeasure and melancholy." A blow to the head, as another poster
suggested, or poison would serve the purpose more effectively.
Carol, staying away from the Countess of Warwick in this post
> That last was meant as a bit of a joke, hence the dots, but it's no
dafter than any other theory we've been able to come up with. We
shouldn't assume the deed was carried out by a nobleman at all; more
likely by some retainer, threatened or bribed. Even the early rumours
about Richard suggest he may just have directed the men who did it.
>
> We're all writing off the top of our heads. And this particular
business is bound to be speculation.
Carol responds:
I agree with you for the most part. However, we do know that John,
Lord Dudley was Constable of the Tower. It was his duty to take care
of the prisoners and, unless I'm mistaken, to arrange for their
execution. He would not, I agree, have killed Henry VI himself.
Executioners were not lords. (I have the dubious distinction of being
descended from the executioner of Charles I.)
And while it's possible that Henry was killed with a knife, that seems
unlikely given that Edward wanted it to appear that he died of "pure
displeasure and melancholy." A blow to the head, as another poster
suggested, or poison would serve the purpose more effectively.
Carol, staying away from the Countess of Warwick in this post
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.