justcarol67

Sandra wrote :"How old would he have been if he was wasn't executed, but escaped and came back as Richard of Eastwell?"

Carol responds:

I forgot to answer this part of your question. John is thought to have been about fourteen when Richard made him Captain of Calais in 1484, which would mean that he was born around 1470. I don't know when Richard of Eastwell showed up on Moyle's doorstep, but John would have been about seventeen when he was imprisoned if it related to the Simnel rebellion and about twenty-one when he was "in the king's hands" according to Perkin Warbeck. That would put him close to thirty when he died if it was at the same time as Warbeck and Warwick.

John would have had no reason to change his name to Richard (unless it was to honor his father). He was a known entity, and you can be sure that Henry was keeping an eye on him.

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-14 21:49:59

SandraMachin

Oh, well, it was just a thought..... Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Sandra wrote : "How old would he have been if he was wasn't executed, but escaped and came back as Richard of Eastwell?"

Carol responds:

I forgot to answer this part of your question. John is thought to have been about fourteen when Richard made him Captain of Calais in 1484, which would mean that he was born around 1470. I don't know when Richard of Eastwell showed up on Moyle's doorstep, but John would have been about seventeen when he was imprisoned if it related to the Simnel rebellion and about twenty-one when he was "in the king's hands" according to Perkin Warbeck. That would put him close to thirty when he died if it was at the same time as Warbeck and Warwick.

John would have had no reason to change his name to Richard (unless it was to honor his father). He was a known entity, and you can be sure that Henry was keeping an eye on him.

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-14 21:51:17

justcarol67

Carol earlier:

"By the way, can you point me to a website that mentions Richard of Eastwell showing up on Moyle's doorstep?"

Carol again:

Never mind. I found it in the same place as the John of Gloucester quotes:
http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_86.html

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-14 22:05:50

justcarol67

One more thought on this topic: If Richard of Eastwell died at 81 in 1550, he must have been born in 1469, in which case, the story that he was brought as a young child to Bosworth by his father can't be true. He would have been, as someone mentioned, in his mid-teens at the time (probably sixteen, not fifteen). Clearly, he would have been born and conceived before Richard's marriage. But why Richard would maintain but not acknowledge this one illegitimate child is unclear--and inconsistent. Why not knight him and give him an important position as he did with John of Gloucester, who was apparently about two years younger?

Has anyone heard any more about the plans to disinter him and check his DNA? A Plantagenet Y chromosome wouldn't confirm his identity as Richard's son, of course, but it could certainly disprove it. As for his being one of Richard's missing nephews, he would have been too old to be either of them if he was born in 1469.

Carol

Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-15 07:42:04

Durose David

Carol,
Perkin Warbeck's intimate knowledge of the goings on at court is easily explained by the fact that he was in the household of Edward Brampton - who was employed in one way or another by Edward, Richard and Henry.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell
Sent: Mon, Apr 14, 2014 8:34:19 PM

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-15 10:06:15

Hilary Jones

Hi all, none of this is new except the Moyle/Tyrell relationship bit and my conjecture about Calais (which for the non UK folk is only about 30 miles from Eastwell). Carol, David Baldwin wrote a whole book about it called the Lost Prince in which he believes, and I do also, that the story that Richard Plantagenet was Richard's child just doesn't ring true. Richard acknowledged his children; he really did obey the games of the age. I think if you google it you will find several mentions. Unlike me, Baldwin has Lovell and the Staffords after Bosworth taking Richard of Shrewsbury (or perhaps the two of them to Colchester) where they remained, with Henry's knowledge, until all the players were dead. Then presumably ROS went odd-jobbing round the country until he turned up by chance on the doorstep of kindly Sir Thomas Moyle (er who was actually one of H8's commissioners). He does make a good point though which is that pretenders have a sell-by date. As someone here rightly says, by the time H7 and MB died either of the boys would be over 40, with no track record of experience and certainly past the glamour point. The fickle British like their Pretenders young and glamorous (think Bonnie Prince Charlie), glamorous young H8 isn't going to be easy to put aside in favour of some middle-aged bloke. Finally, was Sir James really such a loyal Yorkist - like a few others who feature his father was executed by E4? Sir Richard Haute certainly changed his spots quickly. BTW Sir Thomas's sister-in-law was Isabel Stanley and the Woodvilles did pretty well under H7 - poor Katherine even married uncle Jasper and Dorset's kids made some very good matches, considering he was always such a nuisance. As for Perkin Warbeck, I think he was an imposter - Arthurson does a good job in convincing me of that. But that is just me. We know EW colluded with MB over EOY; in the early stages (after Rivers' arrest) she must have been very frightened for her children. It also explains why she was happy to come out of Sanctuary. As for Richard, I lay no blame at his door. I honestly don't think he knew where they were, which is why Buckingham was so anxious to speak with him before his execution. But this last bit is just me; it has a logic though. At which point I shall return to tidying up the Stanleys - now what a huge mess they are! H :) :) (If Yahoo went mad and published half of this I apologise) On Tuesday, 15 April 2014, 8:39, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Carol,
Perkin Warbeck's intimate knowledge of the goings on at court is easily explained by the fact that he was in the household of Edward Brampton - who was employed in one way or another by Edward, Richard and Henry.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell
Sent: Mon, Apr 14, 2014 8:34:19 PM

Sandra wrote :"Actually, thinking on, isn't it only believed' that John of Gloucester was executed? It's not known for sure? How old would he have been if he was wasn't executed, but escaped and came back as Richard of Eastwell? John might well have had the nerve to name himself after his father. Or is that a wild flight of fancy...?"

Carol responds:

Perkin Warbeck's confession mentions that an illegitimate son of Richard's (presumably John) was "in King Henry's hands" (read "in prison") at the time that Warbeck began claiming to be Richard, Duke of York (1491). That fits with and supports what Sir George Buck, Richard's first important defender, wrote: "There was a base son of King Richard made away, and secretly, having been kept long before in prison." The suggestion in Buck is that John was implicated in an Irish plot to restore the House of York.

Since the only official record of him after he was removed as Captain of Calais is a small annual pension given to him by Henry, it's possible that he was somehow involved in the Simnel rebellion (which certainly had Irish connections, not to mention the involvement of John's cousin, John Earl of Lincoln), imprisoned from about 1487 to 1499 (Buck's "long" time), and then executed secretly at about the same time as Perkin Warbeck and poor Edward, Earl of Warwick were executed publicly. Since Henry was executing one real and one possible Plantagenet male, he may have decided to kill John (without a trial) at the same time, thereby eliminating any male who could claim the Plantagenet name (assuming, of course, that Edward V, whom his Parliament had legitimized and made the rightful king, was also dead).

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_86.html

But you're right. If Richard of Eastwell was Richard Duke of York, than Perkin Warbeck was a pretender--but his intimate knowledge of Edward IV's court years after Margaret of York left it is hard to explain if that's the case.

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-15 12:05:00

Jessie Skinner

Really interesting research, Hillary.
Do you think that you, or Baldwin, or a local archaeological service in Kent could gather enough information to get funding to open the grave and to do some DNA research.
It could have historical and financial benefits for the Ashford area of Kent.

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Richard of Eastwell
Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 9:06:14 AM

Re: Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-15 18:43:35

Nicholas Brown

Hilary, that is an interesting connection with the Hautes and Tyrrells. I hadn't previously given too much consideration to Richard of Eastwell, but this does provide an relevant link.
I am not convinced that HT, MB or EW actually thought the Princes were dead. MB with all her connections would have had a lot of inside knowledge. Also, wasn't Thomas Stanley Constable of the Tower? He would have known when and where they went. If the Princes escaped, Tyrrell probably had a key role, and HT was always a bit afraid of what he knew.

Also, if EW and E of Y really believed they were dead, surely there would have been some kind of memorial or chantry set up in their memory, along lots of prayers and masses publicly said for their souls. Medieval people didn't neglect that sort of thing, and I don't think they would have avoided doing what would have been expected because HT was afraid of a memorial to the House of York, as has been suggested by some. In fact, it would have been preferable as it was a reminder that they were gone, and would have been more likely to discourage support for pretenders. I think HT took a risk in repealing Titulus Regius in the hope that the Princes would stay where they were. When Perkin Warbeck emerged, his tactic was to ensure that he was condemned as a fraud.
I not sure who Perkin Warbeck was, but if he was an imposter, I think he was more likely an illegitimate son of Edward IV, one of his brothers (most likely Clarence) or even Margaret of Burgundy than the Boatman's son from Tournai. However, there are a lot of reasons why I wouldn't write him off as Richard of Shrewsbury either. On balance, I think that that it is more likely that he was telling the truth. I don't think he was coached by Brampton though. Why would Brampton spend his time coaching some servant how to pose as one of the PiTTS? Servants were meant to serve after all. He strikes me as someone who had better things to do with his time. Also, how much knowledge would Brampton have? He was very useful to Edward IV and Richard III, but his accomplishments seem to have been quite far afield, rather than as a court insider.

Warbeck is mostly discounted because of his confession (very questionable and probable duress), and the fact that his story about his escape from the Tower was implausible. Perhaps he didn't want to name names, because the 'certain lorde' he referred to was Stanley. He was also vague about Edward V's 'murder.' Perhaps that was because EV was alive, but didn't want to pursue the throne, but Richard did. After all, doesn't Mancini suggest that EV said to Argentine that he would give it all up just for a chance to live.

Just a theory, but Richard of Eastwell could have been either of the PiTTS. Perkin could have been an imposter, and Richard of Shrewsbury returned saying he was a bit older than he actually was. Alternatively, it could have been Edward (about the right age), adopting the name of his brother who pursued the throne in his place.
I had also considered John of Gloucester. I find it strange that there was no record of the execution of the recognized son of Richard III. Also, Buck's reference is to 'a base son,' but he is not named. It is all very vague; it could be a reference to another 'son' (possibly an imposter), or perhaps a reference to an apocryphal tale. Buck said Grafton was his source, but it doesn't appear to be there. There is a reference to a 'John Gloucester' being pardoned for unspecified offences around 1504. There is mention of him being connected to the Calais staple. This could well be a reference to Richard's son. Perhaps after being demoted from Captain of Calais, he stayed there. (Gloucester is a actually an uncommon English surname; I was quite surprised about that.)

Anyway, I do wish we could get Richard of Eastwell, Perkin Warbeck and the bones in the Tower DNA tested! If Perkin and Richard of Eastwell were proven to be brothers, then Richard would be exonerated on both counts.

Nico

On Tuesday, 15 April 2014, 12:05, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Really interesting research, Hillary.
Do you think that you, or Baldwin, or a local archaeological service in Kent could gather enough information to get funding to open the grave and to do some DNA research.
It could have historical and financial benefits for the Ashford area of Kent. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re : Re: Richard of Eastwell
Sent: Tue, Apr 15, 2014 9:06:14 AM

Hi all, none of this is new except the Moyle/Tyrell relationship bit and my conjecture about Calais (which for the non UK folk is only about 30 miles from Eastwell). Carol, David Baldwin wrote a whole book about it called the Lost Prince in which he believes, and I do also, that the story that Richard Plantagenet was Richard's child just doesn't ring true. Richard acknowledged his children; he really did obey the games of the age. I think if you google it you will find several mentions. Unlike me, Baldwin has Lovell and the Staffords after Bosworth taking Richard of Shrewsbury (or perhaps the two of them to Colchester) where they remained, with Henry's knowledge, until all the players were dead. Then presumably ROS went odd-jobbing round the country until he turned up by chance on the doorstep of kindly Sir Thomas Moyle (er who was actually one of H8's commissioners). He does make a good point though which is that pretenders have a sell-by date. As someone here rightly says, by the time H7 and MB died either of the boys would be over 40, with no track record of experience and certainly past the glamour point. The fickle British like their Pretenders young and glamorous (think Bonnie Prince Charlie), glamorous young H8 isn't going to be easy to put aside in favour of some middle-aged bloke. Finally, was Sir James really such a loyal Yorkist - like a few others who feature his father was executed by E4? Sir Richard Haute certainly changed his spots quickly. BTW Sir Thomas's sister-in-law was Isabel Stanley and the Woodvilles did pretty well under H7 - poor Katherine even married uncle Jasper and Dorset's kids made some very good matches, considering he was always such a nuisance. As for Perkin Warbeck, I think he was an imposter - Arthurson does a good job in convincing me of that. But that is just me. We know EW colluded with MB over EOY; in the early stages (after Rivers' arrest) she must have been very frightened for her children. It also explains why she was happy to come out of Sanctuary. As for Richard, I lay no blame at his door. I honestly don't think he knew where they were, which is why Buckingham was so anxious to speak with him before his execution. But this last bit is just me; it has a logic though. At which point I shall return to tidying up the Stanleys - now what a huge mess they are! H :) :) (If Yahoo went mad and published half of this I apologise) On Tuesday, 15 April 2014, 8:39, Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
Carol,
Perkin Warbeck's intimate knowledge of the goings on at court is easily explained by the fact that he was in the household of Edward Brampton - who was employed in one way or another by Edward, Richard and Henry.

Regards
David
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell
Sent: Mon, Apr 14, 2014 8:34:19 PM

Sandra wrote :"Actually, thinking on, isn't it only believed' that John of Gloucester was executed? It's not known for sure? How old would he have been if he was wasn't executed, but escaped and came back as Richard of Eastwell? John might well have had the nerve to name himself after his father. Or is that a wild flight of fancy...?"

Carol responds:

Perkin Warbeck's confession mentions that an illegitimate son of Richard's (presumably John) was "in King Henry's hands" (read "in prison") at the time that Warbeck began claiming to be Richard, Duke of York (1491). That fits with and supports what Sir George Buck, Richard's first important defender, wrote: "There was a base son of King Richard made away, and secretly, having been kept long before in prison." The suggestion in Buck is that John was implicated in an Irish plot to restore the House of York.

Since the only official record of him after he was removed as Captain of Calais is a small annual pension given to him by Henry, it's possible that he was somehow involved in the Simnel rebellion (which certainly had Irish connections, not to mention the involvement of John's cousin, John Earl of Lincoln), imprisoned from about 1487 to 1499 (Buck's "long" time), and then executed secretly at about the same time as Perkin Warbeck and poor Edward, Earl of Warwick were executed publicly. Since Henry was executing one real and one possible Plantagenet male, he may have decided to kill John (without a trial) at the same time, thereby eliminating any male who could claim the Plantagenet name (assuming, of course, that Edward V, whom his Parliament had legitimized and made the rightful king, was also dead).

http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/plantagenet_86.html

But you're right. If Richard of Eastwell was Richard Duke of York, than Perkin Warbeck was a pretender--but his intimate knowledge of Edward IV's court years after Margaret of York left it is hard to explain if that's the case.

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-15 18:44:21

b.eileen25

Carol wrote....' You can be sure that Henry was keeping an eye on him'....which one?
Sorry..could not resist....:0). Eileen

Re: Richard of Eastwell

Just to get one thing clear Hilary, am I right in thinking that you are not suggesting that EW killed the Princes just that she got them out of the Tower?

Ages ago, after reading Richard Collins book and Jenny Powys Lybbe's talk to a Ricardian conference I wrote an article for my branch magazine. I speculated that if MB regarded HT as the Lancastrian heir ever since Tewkesbury there was very little she could do about it while Edward was alive as his military prowess was far greater than anything she could recruit. I also speculated that if she was to succeed then she couldn't only get rid of Edward but she would have to get rid of the Princes, Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, and Edward of Middleham. The funny thing is that all these people were dead or had disappeared within two and a half years of Edward's death. I suppose she could have done a deal with EW regarding the safety of the Princes and then Elizabeth renaged on the deal by supporting the supposed Lambert Simnel rebellion and that is why she was sent to Bermondsey.
It is all very complicated. It does annoy me when so called historians don't consider every angle and just rely on More,Mancini and Croyland. Thank you for shining lights in several corners.
Mary

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-18 18:16:34

Hilary Jones

Thanks! Yes Mary - I certainly don't think she killed them. I truly haven't thought it through in great detail. Part of me thinks that at the time of Edward's death MB's main aim was to get her Henry back home with honour. This was extremely unlikely to happen with a Yorkist king on the throne. But the young Edward (V) was still maleable and could potentially be brought round, but for the hard line that Richard and Hastings were likely to take. Hastings played into her hands when he warned Richard and got Rivers arrested on the way to London. That made EW panic and realise that Richard, like his brother, could act very decisively against treachery if he had to. It wouldn't taken much persuasion from MB to convince her that Hastings and Richard acting in concert would be hard to challenge on any matter - and that getting rid of Hastings would also be a marvellous way of getting one back at Jane Shore. Perhaps MB persuaded EW that the October rebellions were about putting the boys back on the throne - I'm not the first to suggest that?. To do that you needed to get them out of the Tower for a start, so once Richard left London Buckingham could make sure that Tyrell got the keys and transported them to Calais (not Burgundy, Margaret wasn't in on this) where they were fairly close to HT and could be brought back at an appropriate time. It was also a great place for getting messages to and from London because of the Staple - we know that from activity surrounding the Warbeck conspiracy. But there were too many things out of even MB's control. Buckingham was an ambitious lose cannon, HT flattered by Welsh and Cornish dissenters reckoned he could have a go at the top job and mum wasn't likely to dissuade him, the French were less likely to finance a rebellion centred round children etc etc and EW couldn't really do much except plan a match for her daughter with HT to retrieve something. Why am I suggesting this? Well the thing which really strikes me is the deep connections the Woodvilles still have with old Lancaster and the Welsh and how well they all did for years to come in HT's time; that is until EW put her foot wrong probably about the Lambert Simnel rebellion. I think it was Baldwin who suggested that both Simnel and Warbeck were feet in the water for the revelation of the true heirs. H. On Friday, 18 April 2014, 14:29, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
And, one wonders why, the historians do not posit other ideas. There was so much intrigue, so many people with an agenda, and so many things "done", I am baffled. Thank to all of you who are asking, and certainly putting forward excellent arguments.
On Apr 18, 2014, at 6:09 AM, "maryfriend@..." <maryfriend@...> wrote:

Just to get one thing clear Hilary, am I right in thinking that you are not suggesting that EW killed the Princes just that she got them out of the Tower?
Ages ago, after reading Richard Collins book and Jenny Powys Lybbe's talk to a Ricardian conference I wrote an article for my branch magazine. I speculated that if MB regarded HT as the Lancastrian heir ever since Tewkesbury there was very little she could do about it while Edward was alive as his military prowess was far greater than anything she could recruit. I also speculated that if she was to succeed then she couldn't only get rid of Edward but she would have to get rid of the Princes, Richard, Hastings, Buckingham, and Edward of Middleham. The funny thing is that all these people were dead or had disappeared within two and a half years of Edward's death. I suppose she could have done a deal with EW regarding the safety of the Princes and then Elizabeth renaged on the deal by supporting the supposed Lambert Simnel rebellion and that is why she was sent to Bermondsey.
It is all very complicated. It does annoy me when so called historians don't consider every angle and just rely on More,Mancini and Croyland. Thank you for shining lights in several corners.
Mary

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-18 19:31:56

ricard1an

I agree about Simnel being a foot in the water for the heir. The only thing that I can't understand is EW supporting the "Simnel" rebellion because John of Lincoln was clear that it was Edward of Warwick that he was supporting. Thomas Penn showed Lincoln's family tree which did not show the Princes at all (Penn said this was because Lincoln did not consider them heirs to the throne as they were illegitimate). So why on earth was she putting herself in danger by crossing her son-in law. I suppose that she could have some mental issues and given all the trauma in her life that probably isn't far fetched. If only we could go back and observe all that happened. Not sure about Perkin. I just can't see the point of Margaret of Burgundy sending an imposter to take over the country if the Princes were dead, but of course we also have Richard of Eastwell and the possibility that Clarence had sent his son overseas before he died. So I suppose that Perkin could have been a foot in the water for somebody.
Mary

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-19 08:51:09

Hilary Jones

Just caught you again before you get gobbled by yahoo trash Sandra. I reckon we're about 80% at least in agreement - in fact you agree with David Baldwin who had them concealed (but by the Lovells and Staffords) in Colchester, with the knowledge of HT and EW. I truly don't think Richard knew where they were. As you rightly say he was 'honest Richard' - look how quickly he dealt with the EOY issue even though it caused him some discomfort; if he could have produced the boys, their bodies or their whereabouts he would have done so. It would have put an end to all the (I think Frenchie-stirred) rumours and plots. And one has to ask why the second-next most precious Tudor, our Jasper, was married off to a Woodville and an executed traitor's wife at that. The more you dig around the key benefactors from HT's victory the more you realise what huge networks our hero was up against - the Stanleys also had huge connections, MB knew her value in the marriage market. And BTW I've now started bumping into the odd Scot. I reckon poor, honest, well-intending Richard reaped the legacy of most of the misdemeanours of the Plantagenet dynasty. As we've said a million times on here, life is so unfair. H On Friday, 18 April 2014, 12:37, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Here I am, Hilary, and a Happy Easter to you too. I am aware of stepping into everyone's sights by writing this, but it's probably so full of holes I'll probably nose-dive on my own. If I have read you correctly, I agree about Elizabeth Woodville's possible culpability, not in the rescue' of her sons from the Tower, but of their sudden demise wherever Richard sent them. To be honest, I think she was capable of anything. Once she realized she had been duped into a marriage that had to hold because Edward had overplayed his lecherous hand, she became resentful. As long as Edward kept piling on the honours and rewards for her family, she toed the Yorkist (um, Woodville) line. This remained the case while the likelihood of Edward V was certain, but as soon as Edward IV died and Richard got in the way of her grandiose ambitions, she'd have done anything to get rid of him and restore her fortunes. At the time, her sons had been proved illegitimate, and with that proof her hopes of being King Mother had hurled themselves out of the window. Revenge was something she probably contemplated night and day, and once there came the prospect of EofY marrying Henry, accompanied by all the subterfuge and treachery that was bubbling at Richard's expense, I think she saw her chance. A very cold-blooded, calculated chance that relied upon there being enough opposition to Richard. Maybe she knew the extent of it and thought the risk worth taking.

I do not doubt that Richard had the boys removed from the Tower, but was their destination as much of a secret as he believed? How many people actually knew about it, and how many of them might have been secretly disloyal to him? The realm seethed with divided loyalties. Except for Richard himself, of course, but being honourable was not always a sensible thing, especially in those days. Perhaps all those years of being lord in the north, loved and respected for his military skill and strong sense of justice, had blinded him to the reality of the nasty south. He may have had a shock when he discovered the rest of the realm wasn't for him'. By then, his die had been cast.

Elizabeth cannot have liked being mere Dame Elizabeth Grey. Richard had to be overthrown first, of course---no easy feat---but then, if her sons were rescued and restored to legitimacy, she would once again be the mother of the king. But who was going to help her do that? Anyone who wanted Richard toppled had a private agenda, and I don't think Edward V and the Woodvilles were first on many prominent lists. Revenge and personal ambition definitely was. Getting rid of York was a very popular choice, and in my opinion, the whiff of Lancaster being restored was very heady for those who hadn't got what they wanted from Honest Richie. They were in for a shock when they found their lot didn't improve under Horrid Henry.

So, might Elizabeth have been complicit in (or even guilty of) disposing of her by then inconvenient sons, who couldn't possibly be legitimised again if they were still alive. Henry would have none of that he couldn't. So, England was faced with a minority reign, Woodvilles everywhere, Lancastrian hopes still dashed. No no. So there wasn't any room for Edward V between Richard and Henry. Elizabeth must have seen that her only hope of restoring her personal ambition was to back Henry Tudor, because her second-choice---and more likely---ambition was to become the mother of the next queen, grandmother of any children and so on? Bye-bye lowly Dame Grey? Given my opinion of her, I think it is a strong possibility. If there was a whisper of where the boys had been sent, picking them off there would surely be much simpler than if they were still in the Tower. Whoever had them would think their presence a well-kept secret, and so would not expect anyone to creep around at night, do the dirty deed and then creep away again. Not Elizabeth in person, I hasten to say, but certainly someone sent by her. For Richard, it all hinged on their whereabouts remaining secret and ultimately secure, in Burgundy probably. If thwarted Dame Grey learned that secret place, might she fancy exchanging Dame Grey for the far better position of becoming Queen Mother? She would not be merciful to her tiresome boys, methinks. Nor would she have been loose-tongued after the event. This would be something between her and her Maker. (You can see why I write fiction, eh...? <g>)

But whatever actually happened to them, it didn't quite come off for Elizabeth Woodville, because her new son-in-law couldn't stand the sight of her and certainly didn't trust her. But then, he would know she had turned her coat, and if there was one thing he could not abide, it was a turncoat. Some turncoats had to be rewarded, of course, otherwise the numbers in his camp would have been perilously low, but I doubt if Henry every really trusted the likes of Lord Stanley. The ones he had time for were those who'd flocked to him early on in Brittany, not those who waited until the very last minute at Bosworth. He was a very shrewd if unlovable man, a born political animal, and would see right through his loathed mother-in-law. As had Richard before him, of course, but Richard had only been interested in the welfare of his nieces and nephews, not the fortunes of their disagreeable over-ambitious mother, who in his eyes was nothing more than his late brother's mistress. So it was Bermondsey, here I come! for her. And serves her right. IMHO.

I'm sure this notion of them being killed in Richard's secret sanctuary will soon be dashed from all sides. I doubt if Richard ever knew what ultimately happened to his nephews. He tried to save them when he came to the throne. They were his nephews and nieces, and I do not think it would have crossed his mind to do away with them. Move them aside, to be out of the public eye, maybe, but not anything terminal. But they disappeared in spite of his best efforts. Perhaps he was told they had been sent on to Burgundy as he originally instructed? Perhaps he was spun a yarn spun about a shipwreck and no known survivors? Who knows? In due course, Henry only had to wring his hands and say he didn't know anything either. Which maybe he didn't, as he certainly took pretenders seriously. Buckingham was dead, but I doubt if he would have helped Elizabeth in anything, because I feel he had ambitions of his own that certainly did not include the crowning of Edward V. So Elizabeth would kneel at her prie-dieu of a night, turning her lovely eyes heavenward...while gritting her teeth because it had all gone wrong for her after all.

I now await the ack-ack... (And if this has all be discussed before, I apologise.)

Sandra
=^..^=

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 10:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Hi Doug, as I've said earlier I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the intricacies of the PIT issue. However, regarding the Tyrell issue I'd point out a couple of things. One is that, as in the case of the Courtenay and Hungerfords, Tyrell's father had been executed by Edward IV in 1462, along with the husband of the other Anne Darcy, Sir John Montgomery. Secondly, the Tyrells were historically closer to the Woodviles than the House of York. Also there is the intriguing case of why his realtive Sir Richard Haute changed his loyalties in October 1483.

Secondly I would ask just how fond EW would be of the House of York by 1483. Her husband had been a philanderer and probably out of her influence, Clarence had been a perpetual pest and the mother-in-law was probably overbearing. All books assume that Elizabeth would rejoice in wielding influence over her son when he became King, but would she have that influence? He'd been at Ludlow for years, he was probably fed up with Uncle Rivers (he was on the cusp of the age when teenagers rebel). He'd probably revel in the heroics of Uncle Richard's battle successes and Hastings' tales of his exploits with the ladies and exile abroad with dad. Look what Edward III, who was not that much older, had done to his mother Isabella. So if, after Northampton, MB appeared at the Abbey offering wine and sympathy (sorry no tea in those days) you could almost hear her saying that the new King would need some new, reliable courtiers like her Henry who would bring with him all those disaffected Welsh and others that Edward had upset. Elizabeth knew the Welsh through her first husband, John Grey of Ruthin. And it probably wouldn't be that difficult to frame Hastings to get him out of the way, given Richard's recent display of twitchiness; MB did after all have her nephew in a prime position and she knew exactly how to persuade him by massaging his vanity. The bombshell neither predicted was the emergence of the Pre-contract and Richard actually becoming King. And then something would have to be done to 'rescue' the princes ......

I of course wouldn't dream of writing a book on this because it is pure speculation but in the mystery of the princes we always have 3 suspects, Richard, Henry and Buckingham. Why does nobody ever think of their mother? I know you won't agree but I like a good debate :)

Happy Easter all H.
On Thursday, 17 April 2014, 16:28, Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...> wrote:

Carol wrote:
//snip//
"So, hmm. Richard of Eastwell and not Perkin Warbeck? Or maybe both of them, if Richard of Eatwell was Edward? (interesting that he would change his name to Richard if so.)
snip//

Doug here:
Well, if "Perkin" *was* Richard of Shrewsbury, noone would be on the look-out any longer for someone named "Richard", would they?

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-19 10:36:29

Christine Headley (lists)

I suspect not many others here have looked into the Richard of Eastwell story in the Kent County archives. (I wish I had kept better notes - I will have to go back!) That said, I didn't know about the family relationships, but it doesn't necessarily explain why Sir Walter Moyle (Sir Thomas's grandfather) bought land in the next parish to Eastwell in the first place. Or was it convenient for him to be within a short ride of the Hautes' relations the Fogges in Ashford?

(I've been on holiday since this thread emerged.)

The tomb now ascribed to Richard of Eastwell is very unlikely to be his. He was definitely buried at Eastwell, but in no more state than anyone else. The posh tomb is thought to be that of Sir Walter Moyle. The church was built of unsuitable material and disintegrated just after the Second World War.

Richard of Eastwell did not 'turn up on the doorstep'. He tried very hard to conceal his identity, but he did like to read Latin on his breaks. Sir Thomas put a great deal of effort into finding out what he was reading, and for a long time he managed to keep the book out of sight when Sir Thomas got close enough.

The story was told to the vicar of Wye by Sir Thomas Moyle's descendant Heneage Finch. the fifth earl of Winchilsea, who was a Jacobite and thus unwelcome at Court. I don't think it works for Richard of Shrewsbury, as he would have been too young for so much education before Bosworth.

Best wishes
Christine

On 17/04/2014 17:25, Douglas Eugene Stamate wrote:

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-19 12:06:09

2014-04-21 13:05:06

Jan Mulrenan

Jan here.Yes, it is & I hope the researcher(s) come up with something substantial & well supported. English & Welsh records may possibly yield up something new but after all these years of combing through them I think it unlikely. France & the Low Countries offer intriguing possibilities. I wonder who the researchers are?Expectations are raised.

On 21 Apr 2014, at 09:54, <maryfriend@...> wrote:

Mary

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-21 13:37:22

Pamela Bain

That is quite interesting. You answered one of my questions have the records never been checked?. I was certain they had been, but perhaps the new sites with more records available is making it easier to find some things. Or has the hullabaloo about Richard's remains opened up many more eyes, and raised many more questions?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Jan Mulrenan
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 7:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Jan here.

Yes, it is & I hope the researcher(s) come up with something substantial & well supported. English & Welsh records may possibly yield up something new but after all these years of combing through them I think it unlikely. France & the Low Countries offer intriguing possibilities. I wonder who the researchers are?

Expectations are raised.

On 21 Apr 2014, at 09:54, <maryfriend@...> wrote:

Mary

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-21 14:55:46

Christine Headley (lists)

How would you know if you had found Richard of Eastwell?

Best wishes
Christine

On 21/04/2014 08:58, Carol Darling wrote:

Re : Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-21 15:55:41

Durose David

2014-04-25 01:29:26

Christine Headley (lists)

Of course, if the first Beaufort had really been a Swynford (see December Bulletin), this would stop the Y-chromosome hunt completely.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of justcarol67@...
Sent: 25 April 2014 17:23
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard of Eastwell

Christine wrote :

"Who would you ask for the control Y chromosome? Or the Jacquetta-line mtDNA?"

Carol responds:

The control Y chromosome is not a problem. The University of Leicester team already has DNA from more than one male-line descendant of John Beaufort's illegitimate son (whose Y chromosome, like Richard's and those of his male-line nephews and/or illegitimate son, traces back to Edward III, in this case via John of Gaunt). The researchers are still working on getting a complete Y chromosome from Richard to match the Beaufort-line chromosome, but once they do, that problem will be resolved. (Whether Edward IV's matches Richard's and the Beaufort descendants' is another question.)

As for the Jacquetta-line mtDNA, they would probably have to dig up one of the women I mentioned in the previous post since the female-line descendants, if any, are hard to trace. EoY's daughter Margaret had no daughters. Her daughter Mary's daughter, Frances Brandon, had three daughters, one of whom, Katherine, also seems to have had a daughter, but what what happened from there, I don't know. (Stephen, do you know?)

EoY's sister Cecily seems to have had a daughter named Margaret or Margery (and a son named Richard!) who married and had children, but he descendants are lost to history thanks to Cecily's isolation from the Tudor court after her marriage to Thomas Kymbe. Her sister Anne had no daughters, and her sister Catherine's daughter Margaret Courtenay had no children. Bridget, of course, became a nun. Which pretty much leaves us with the hope that Katherine Grey (Frances Brandon's daughter) had a daughter who continued her great-grandmother EoY's line. Otherwise, we'd have to go back up the line and trace the descendants of Elizabeth Woodville's numerous sisters to find a living descendant. If none, we're stuck with so-called "ancient DNA." In other words, they would have to dig up Elizabeth Woodville or Elizabeth of York--unless they can get DNA from a lock of Mary Tudor's hair (EoY's daughter Mary, that is). I believe J A-H talks about that in his blog somewhere.

Anyway, it's not impossible, just difficult. One more point--if Richard of Eastwell's mtDNA doesn't match that of EW or EoY but his Y chromosome matches Richard's, we can rule out his being Edward ex-V or Richard ex-Duke of York , but it won't prove that he's Richard's illegitimate son, only that he's a Plantagenet. His father could be any of the three York brothers or even a Beaufort (though why he would claim to be Richard III's son under a Tudor regime if he were a Beaufort escapes me).

I know that the idea of disinterring people to examine their DNA is disturbing to some people, but I don't know any other way to determine the truth in this instance.

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 17:43:16

justcarol67

Nico wrote:

"Another problem with the Beaufort dna is the possibility that Richard and Edward's grandfather, Richard Earl of Cambridge was illegitimate, and his father was Richard II's half brother, John Holland - so the y dna wouldn't be 'Plantagenet.' "

Carol responds:
I've never heard a rumor that Richard Earl of Cambridge was illegitimate. Where did you hear that? Fortunately, it wouldn't eliminate the whole Yorkist claim, which was through the Mortimer descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, but it certainly throws a wrench into the works with regard to Richard's emphasis on legitimacy (his vs. Tudor's) and the claim of Titulus Regius that his nephews were illegitimate. I'm certain that Richard believed in his own legitimacy from all lines.

What is your source for this story?

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 18:04:13

SandraMachin

As an aside. Sometimes---for me, anyway---it's the not knowing for sure that is part of the fascination. Where would we be without all the legends and rumours? But then again, another part of me is dying to know the truth. A cleft stick. To know or not to know. That is the question. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:22 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 18:50:23

SandraMachin

Carol, there is a 15th century note on the Shirley MS of Chaucer's Compleynt of Mars stating that it was written about the love of John Holland, later 1st Duke of Exeter, for Isabella, Duchess of York. John Holland was the younger of the two sons born to Joan of Kent by her first husband, Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent. Richard of Conisborough was born in the right time slot to be the result of this illicit affair, and was omitted from his father York's will, suggesting he was indeed illegitimate. The assumption appears to be obvious, Richard of Conisborough was the son of John Holland. But it is not proven, of course. In Chaucer, the Duke of York (Edmund of Langley) is referred to as The Candle of Jealousy. Richard of Conisborough became 3rd Earl of Cambridge and his son was Richard III's father. John Holland had something of a reputation in the lists of love, and eventually got Elizabeth of Lancaster up the duff' and had to marry her. Or maybe he did it deliberately, with a view to being able to marry her. Who knows? Thus he came John of Gaunt's son-in-law as well as Henry IV's brother-in-law. Very high connections all round. His blood descendants are bound to still be around now. If they aren't, it won't be for lacking of effort on his part. I nearly wrote by his part'. Oops. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:43 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 18:53:43

Pamela Bain

Love the oops!!!

Pamela Bain| President

Bain Medina Bain, Inc.

Engineers & Surveyors

HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm

TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712

TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900

www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216

210.494.7223 ext. 223

pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 12:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

John Holland had something of a reputation in the lists of love, and eventually got Elizabeth of Lancaster up the duff' and had to marry her. Or maybe he did it deliberately, with a view to being able to marry her. Who knows? Thus he came John of Gaunt's son-in-law as well as Henry IV's brother-in-law. Very high connections all round. His blood descendants are bound to still be around now. If they aren't, it won't be for lacking of effort on his part. I nearly wrote by his part'. Oops.

Sandra

=^..^=

From: justcarol67@...

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:43 PM

To:

Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Nico wrote:

"Another problem with the Beaufort dna is the possibility that Richard and Edward's grandfather, Richard Earl of Cambridge was illegitimate, and his father was Richard II's half brother, John Holland - so the y dna wouldn't be 'Plantagenet.' "

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 19:44:48

justcarol67

Sandra wrote :

"Carol, there is a 15th century note on the Shirley MS of Chaucer's Compleynt of Mars stating that it was written about the love of John Holland, later 1st Duke of Exeter, for Isabella, Duchess of York. John Holland was the younger of the two sons born to Joan of Kent by her first husband, Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent. Richard of Conisborough was born in the right time slot to be the result of this illicit affair, and was omitted from his father York's will, suggesting he was indeed illegitimate. The assumption appears to be obvious, Richard of Conisborough was the son of John Holland. But it is not proven, of course. In Chaucer, the Duke of York (Edmund of Langley) is referred to as The Candle of Jealousy. Richard of Conisborough became 3rd Earl of Cambridge and his son was Richard III's father." Carol responds:

Thanks, Sandra. Given that I've never seen a reference to it in a biography of Richard III, I'm guessing that historians don't take it seriously. And neither, apparently, did the Houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor, since none of them made use of (or denied) the rumor. Surely, when Richard was attacking (with justification) the legitimacy on both sides of Henry Tudor, Henry would have fired back with the allegation that Richard's grandfather was illegitimate had he heard it suggested. But, again, the House of York didn't claim the throne through the Duke of York despite its name. It would only matter in terms of the Y chromosome. And if Edward's doesn't match Richard's and Richard's doesn't match the Beauforts', we'd have to resort to George's--and we're not even sure that the body in his grave is his!

What a mess! Does anyone know of a historian who has taken the Richard, Earl of Cambridge illegitimacy story seriously?

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-25 20:17:13

SandraMachin

Carol, Wiki (I only whispered that) says as follows: Richard (of Conisborough) was two years younger than his brother, Edward, and according to Harriss, since he received no lands from his father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and was not mentioned in either his father's or his brother's wills, he may have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter.[3] (Harriss 2004: Pugh 1988, pp. 901; Tuck 2004.) The Harriss in question appears to be G.L. Harris, (Wiki again: Gerald Leslie Harriss FBA is an English historian of the Late Middle Ages. His work focused on the parliamentary and administrative history of the period. Harriss is an Emeritus Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. And the Harriss book being referred to above is, I think, Political Culture in Later Medieval England: Essays by Simon Walker, edited by Harriss. It's too expensive to order just to find out if it's the right one! The library beckons. I haven't followed up any of theese references, which you can find on Richard of Conisborough's Wiki page) but it seems the story is believed in some quarters...or at least, given credence. The affair between the duchess and John Holland is well known and I have come across it many times when researching that flambuoyant gentleman. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 7:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell

Re: Richard of Conisbrough (Was Richard of Eastwell)

2014-04-26 09:11:19

brian\_yorkist

The theory - and it is that, a theory - that Richard of Conisbrough was not Langley's son was first developed - I think - by T.B. Pugh in his extremely useful book, _Henry V and the Southampton Plot_. It is also discussed in my little factual book about Langley's children, _Friustrated Falcons_
It is unlikely that Richard was born in 1375, because if he had he would have been in his middle twenties at the end of Richard II's reign. His family was in high favour, and it is hard to believe he would not at least have been knighted had he attained such an age.
Pugh goes with 1385, and I followed this in my novel _Within the Fetterlock_which touches (but only very lightly) on Langley's suspicions.
Brian Wainwright

Re: Richard of Conisbrough (Was Richard of Eastwell)

2014-04-26 09:47:59

2014-04-27 13:05:01

SandraMachin

Me again, Brian. Amazon now delivering on a Sunday, I have just received Frustrated Falcons, a dip into which reveals it to be fascinating. I will be sure to leave you a favourable review. Sandra =^..^= From: wainwright.brian@... Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:52 AM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Conisbrough (Was Richard of Eastwell)

Hi Carol, Under English Law, Richard of Conisbrough was legally York's son, whether he was York's natural son or not. Of course, in those days there was absolutely no way of proving these things, and suspicion and gossip are certainly not proof. There is no doubt that Richard was regarded as a member of 'the family', albeit a very minor one. For much of his life he was living on a pittance, at least by the standards of the nobility. Duchess Isabella had a rep. for being frivolous and worldly, according to chroniclers, and it may simply be that she was judged accordingly, perhaps without any justice. We shall never know for sure. I have already written one novel around Richard III, The Adventures of Alianore Audley. Albeit, it is a parody/humorous work, but it tells the basic tale. I have tried three times to produce a serious novel, but so far have failed. None of the attempts came up to the standard I require for Richard, although a few bits were published in my little kindle book, The Open Fetterlock. However, just lately I have been thinking of starting again. You heard it here first! But nothing can or will happen until my second Alianore book is finished and out of the way. Then it's either R3 or the Fetterlock Prequel. Regards Brian

Re: Richard of Conisbrough (Was Richard of Eastwell)

2014-04-27 13:58:18

Pamela Bain

Good for you......the more people who write favorable novels about Richard III, the better!
On Apr 27, 2014, at 4:53 AM, "wainwright.brian@..." <wainwright.brian@...> wrote:

Hi Carol,

Under English Law, Richard of Conisbrough was legally York's son, whether he was York's natural son or not. Of course, in those days there was absolutely no way of proving these things, and suspicion and gossip are certainly not proof. There is no doubt that Richard was regarded as a member of 'the family', albeit a very minor one. For much of his life he was living on a pittance, at least by the standards of the nobility.
Duchess Isabella had a rep. for being frivolous and worldly, according to chroniclers, and it may simply be that she was judged accordingly, perhaps without any justice. We shall never know for sure.
I have already written one novel around Richard III, The Adventures of Alianore Audley. Albeit, it is a parody/humorous work, but it tells the basic tale. I have tried three times to produce a serious novel, but so far have failed. None of the attempts came up to the standard I require for Richard, although a few bits were published in my little kindle book, The Open Fetterlock.
However, just lately I have been thinking of starting again. You heard it here first! But nothing can or will happen until my second Alianore book is finished and out of the way. Then it's either R3 or the Fetterlock Prequel.
Regards Brian

Re: Richard of Conisbrough (Was Richard of Eastwell)

2014-04-28 04:32:02

justcarol67

Brian wrote :

Hi Carol,
"Under English Law, Richard of Conisbrough was legally York's son, whether he was York's natural son or not. Of course, in those days there was absolutely no way of proving these things, and suspicion and gossip are certainly not proof. There is no doubt that Richard was regarded as a member of 'the family', albeit a very minor one. For much of his life he was living on a pittance, at least by the standards of the nobility. <snip>"

Carol responds:

Thank you, Brian. Your explanation is reassuring and explains why not even Richard's (or his brother Edward's) enemies ever raised the question of Richard of Conisburgh's legitimacy.

I've heard good things about Alianore. I'll give her a try when I have the time. Hope you do get around to writing a serious novel about Richard--but maybe you could add a bit of fun to the mix--at least in the Duke of Gloucester years.

Carol

Re: Richard of Eastwell

2014-04-28 07:54:59

Nicholas Brown

Carol responds:
I've never heard a rumor that Richard Earl of Cambridge was illegitimate. Where did you hear that? Fortunately, it wouldn't eliminate the whole Yorkist claim, which was through the Mortimer descendants of Lionel of Antwerp, but it certainly throws a wrench into the works with regard to Richard's emphasis on legitimacy (his vs. Tudor's) and the claim of Titulus Regius that his nephews were illegitimate. I'm certain that Richard believed in his own legitimacy from all lines.

What is your source for this story?

Carol--------------------------------------------------------------

I think the others have given some good answers here. Actually, I'm no expert on this story. I read it in Michael Hick's book about Edward V, but haven't read the original book, T.B. Pugh's, Henry V and the Southampton Plot. Hicks cited it as an example of how the House of York were inclined towards violence and lechery. (His opinion, not mine.)
Whether true or not, it did not legally affect Richard's claim to legitimacy. The law was (and still is) that a child is the legitimate child of the mother's husband, regardless of who the biological father may be. The father could challenge the legitimacy, but a lot of men didn't want to, because without an admission from the mother, it would have involved a formal inquiry which would have been humiliating and intrusive, so many men didn't bother. Nowadays, things are much easier and you can do a DNA test.

Therefore, whatever the genetic truth may be, Richard III had every reason to be confident that he was a legitimate Plantagenet and in his right to the throne. (In fact, despite all the rumours about Blaybourne, Edward IV had every reason to think the same thing) .Henry Tudor, being from the legally barred from the throne Beaufort line had no such consolation. In fact, there was also a very interesting article in the Ricardian not long ago about how the Beaufor's might actually have been Swynford's.
Nico
On Friday, 25 April 2014, 20:17, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Carol, Wiki (I only whispered that) says as follows: Richard (of Conisborough) was two years younger than his brother, Edward, and according to Harriss, since he received no lands from his father, Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, and was not mentioned in either his father's or his brother's wills, he may have been the child of an illicit liaison between his mother and John Holland, 1st Duke of Exeter.[3] (Harriss 2004: Pugh 1988, pp. 901; Tuck 2004.) The Harriss in question appears to be G.L. Harris, (Wiki again: Gerald Leslie Harriss FBA is an English historian of the Late Middle Ages. His work focused on the parliamentary and administrative history of the period. Harriss is an Emeritus Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. And the Harriss book being referred to above is, I think, Political Culture in Later Medieval England: Essays by Simon Walker, edited by Harriss. It's too expensive to order just to find out if it's the right one! The library beckons. I haven't followed up any of theese references, which you can find on Richard of Conisborough's Wiki page) but it seems the story is believed in some quarters...or at least, given credence. The affair between the duchess and John Holland is well known and I have come across it many times when researching that flambuoyant gentleman. Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 7:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard of Eastwell Sandra wrote :

"Carol, there is a 15th century note on the Shirley MS of Chaucer's Compleynt of Mars stating that it was written about the love of John Holland, later 1st Duke of Exeter, for Isabella, Duchess of York. John Holland was the younger of the two sons born to Joan of Kent by her first husband, Thomas Holland, 1st Earl of Kent. Richard of Conisborough was born in the right time slot to be the result of this illicit affair, and was omitted from his father York's will, suggesting he was indeed illegitimate. The assumption appears to be obvious, Richard of Conisborough was the son of John Holland. But it is not proven, of course. In Chaucer, the Duke of York (Edmund of Langley) is referred to as The Candle of Jealousy. Richard of Conisborough became 3rd Earl of Cambridge and his son was Richard III's father." Carol responds:

Thanks, Sandra. Given that I've never seen a reference to it in a biography of Richard III, I'm guessing that historians don't take it seriously. And neither, apparently, did the Houses of York, Lancaster, and Tudor, since none of them made use of (or denied) the rumor. Surely, when Richard was attacking (with justification) the legitimacy on both sides of Henry Tudor, Henry would have fired back with the allegation that Richard's grandfather was illegitimate had he heard it suggested. But, again, the House of York didn't claim the throne through the Duke of York despite its name. It would only matter in terms of the Y chromosome. And if Edward's doesn't match Richard's and Richard's doesn't match the Beauforts', we'd have to resort to George's--and we're not even sure that the body in his grave is his!

What a mess! Does anyone know of a historian who has taken the Richard, Earl of Cambridge illegitimacy story seriously?

Carol

Richard III on Amazon

As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.