Woodville DNA

It just occurred to me that if the bones of Eric and Urnie are ever
tested for DNA, that if they prove not to be Plantagenets in the male
line this would not disprove they're the Princes, as the possible
illegitimacy of Edward IV might be the cause.
Therefore they might be positively identified through Elizabeth
Woodville's maternal DNA. Since Elizabeth and her eight sisters were all
married, it seems quite likely that at least one continuous female line
of descent can be traced from them. Its even possible that such a line
could be found from her mother's Luxembourg relatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquetta_of_Luxembourg#Issue_of_Jacquetta_\
de_Luxembourg_and_Richard_Woodville
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquetta_of_Luxembourg#Issue_of_Jacquetta\
_de_Luxembourg_and_Richard_Woodville>

Just been researching the Rivers family of Chafford for my database, and found this discussion:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1056.html


http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1057.html


So, does anyone have definite evidence that "Sir Bartholomew Rivers", companion to Edward IV, ever existed; or is he an invention of Tudor greed?

It seems an extremely elaborate method of screwing a few more cents out of the system, even by Tudor standards. In any case, the Woodvilles had very little in the way of inheritable lands, and Elizabeth had eight sisters to share it with.

Nevertheless I can find no contemporary references to a Sir Bart Rivers 1400-1480, and there are stories that the last Earl Rivers married in secret and had a son, hidden from the King to protect him from Henry's greed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_3rd_Earl_Rivers

 

________________________________
From: theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 15 October 2012, 21:28
Subject: Woodville DNA


 
It just occurred to me that if the bones of Eric and Urnie are ever
tested for DNA, that if they prove not to be Plantagenets in the male
line this would not disprove they're the Princes, as the possible
illegitimacy of Edward IV might be the cause.
Therefore they might be positively identified through Elizabeth
Woodville's maternal DNA. Since Elizabeth and her eight sisters were all
married, it seems quite likely that at least one continuous female line
of descent can be traced from them. Its even possible that such a line
could be found from her mother's Luxembourg relatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquetta_of_Luxembourg#Issue_of_Jacquetta_\
de_Luxembourg_and_Richard_Woodville
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquetta_of_Luxembourg#Issue_of_Jacquetta\
_de_Luxembourg_and_Richard_Woodville>

From: "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?


Just been researching the Rivers family of Chafford for my database, and
found this discussion:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1056.html


http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1057.html


//snip//
Nevertheless I can find no contemporary references to a Sir Bart Rivers
1400-1480, and there are stories that the last Earl Rivers married in secret
and had a son, hidden from the King to protect him from Henry's greed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_3rd_Earl_Rivers


I'm not certain about the various grades of nobility, but I understand that
"Bart" is short for Baronet, which refers to, I believe, a heritable
knighthood. Would that solve the problem? Perhaps, at some time, someone who
knows as much as I do about this subject (insert derisive snort here) got
confused?
Doug

Good idea, Douglas, but Baronetcies date from James VI/I's reign as a honour that he could sell but without a seat in the Lords. The holder would be styled Sir John Smith, Bart.

If Sir Bart Rivers existed, it would be an abbreviation for Bartholomew or something else.

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?




From: "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?

Just been researching the Rivers family of Chafford for my database, and
found this discussion:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1056.html

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1057.html

//snip//
Nevertheless I can find no contemporary references to a Sir Bart Rivers
1400-1480, and there are stories that the last Earl Rivers married in secret
and had a son, hidden from the King to protect him from Henry's greed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_3rd_Earl_Rivers

I'm not certain about the various grades of nobility, but I understand that
"Bart" is short for Baronet, which refers to, I believe, a heritable
knighthood. Would that solve the problem? Perhaps, at some time, someone who
knows as much as I do about this subject (insert derisive snort here) got
confused?
Doug

Thanks for pointing that out. My mistake for using the abbreviation.

I still find it hard to believe that even Henry would invent an entire family just to bilk Richard Woodville out of his inheritance. More likely Richard Rivers invented his descent from the Earls Rivers in an attempt to grab the title.

Henry's claim to a share of the lands (through his wife) would amount to a 1/5th share of a 1/9th share of an estate scarcely sufficient for a mere baron, amounting to probably less than the value of a single manor.
However if Rivers had won his case, he would have inherited all the lands plus the Earldom.


________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 October 2012, 19:21
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?


 
Good idea, Douglas, but Baronetcies date from James VI/I's reign as a honour that he could sell but without a seat in the Lords. The holder would be styled Sir John Smith, Bart.

If Sir Bart Rivers existed, it would be an abbreviation for Bartholomew or something else.

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?

From: "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?

Just been researching the Rivers family of Chafford for my database, and
found this discussion:

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1056.html

http://genforum.genealogy.com/rivers/messages/1057.html

//snip//
Nevertheless I can find no contemporary references to a Sir Bart Rivers
1400-1480, and there are stories that the last Earl Rivers married in secret
and had a son, hidden from the King to protect him from Henry's greed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Woodville,_3rd_Earl_Rivers

I'm not certain about the various grades of nobility, but I understand that
"Bart" is short for Baronet, which refers to, I believe, a heritable
knighthood. Would that solve the problem? Perhaps, at some time, someone who
knows as much as I do about this subject (insert derisive snort here) got
confused?
Doug

Stephen Lark wrote:


"Good idea, Douglas, but Baronetcies date from James VI/I's reign as a
honour that he could sell but without a seat in the Lords. The holder would
be styled Sir John Smith, Bart.
If Sir Bart Rivers existed, it would be an abbreviation for Bartholomew or
something else."

Thanks for the correction, Stephen. Darn, and I thought all those English
mysteries I've read were finally paying off! Oh well, back to the drawing
board.

There was a Bartholomew de la Riviere in the Yorkist period. He is described in a grant of 1468 as a Gascon, and there is an entry in Harley 433 to do with him as well, re lands in Norfolk.

There was a gentry family of the same name in yorkshire, but evidently no relation.

Marie

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
>
> "Good idea, Douglas, but Baronetcies date from James VI/I's reign as a
> honour that he could sell but without a seat in the Lords. The holder would
> be styled Sir John Smith, Bart.
> If Sir Bart Rivers existed, it would be an abbreviation for Bartholomew or
> something else."
>
> Thanks for the correction, Stephen. Darn, and I thought all those English
> mysteries I've read were finally paying off! Oh well, back to the drawing
> board.
>

P.S. He was also known as Bartelot.
Marie

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> There was a Bartholomew de la Riviere in the Yorkist period. He is described in a grant of 1468 as a Gascon, and there is an entry in Harley 433 to do with him as well, re lands in Norfolk.
>
> There was a gentry family of the same name in yorkshire, but evidently no relation.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Good idea, Douglas, but Baronetcies date from James VI/I's reign as a
> > honour that he could sell but without a seat in the Lords. The holder would
> > be styled Sir John Smith, Bart.
> > If Sir Bart Rivers existed, it would be an abbreviation for Bartholomew or
> > something else."
> >
> > Thanks for the correction, Stephen. Darn, and I thought all those English
> > mysteries I've read were finally paying off! Oh well, back to the drawing
> > board.
> >
>

Marie wrote:

There was a Bartholomew de la Riviere in the Yorkist period. He is
described in a grant of 1468 as a Gascon, and there is an entry in Harley
433 to do with him as well, re lands in Norfolk.

There was a gentry family of the same name in yorkshire, but evidently no
relation.


Wouldn't "De la Riviere", if accurately translated, be something such as
"(of the) Shore"or "Coast"?
One might think that if the person writing knew enough NOT to worry about
the translating, and including that translation, of "De la", they would also
know that. However, I suppose it's just as possible that the opposite is
true. And after all, written English wasn't exactly standardized yet, was
it?

The family definitely existed in the 15th century. The suggestion is that Richard Rivers was in fact the son of Richard Woodville, last Lord Rivers, and that he was defrauded of the Earldom by having this fake ancestry (the first few names) invented for him. 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ikwAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA217&dq=Anne+Cath&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q=Anne%20Cath&f=false


The issue is further clouded by the indifferent spelling of the period: the title of the Woodville's Barony and Earldom "Rivers" is often misunderstood as referring to descent from the family of Redvers, Earls of Devon, or from the Rivers family, barons of Ongar. 
In fact neither are included in the Woodville ancestry; the title is more properly "Rievers" and refers to a Lordship in Normandy awarded to the family during the English occupation of France in the Lancastrian period. Several English magnates retained such titles, even after the lands concerned had been reconquered by France. 

http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/greek-mysteries/message/259




________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012, 15:42
Subject: Re: Woodville DNA - last of the Rivers?


 

Marie wrote:

There was a Bartholomew de la Riviere in the Yorkist period. He is
described in a grant of 1468 as a Gascon, and there is an entry in Harley
433 to do with him as well, re lands in Norfolk.

There was a gentry family of the same name in yorkshire, but evidently no
relation.

Wouldn't "De la Riviere", if accurately translated, be something such as
"(of the) Shore"or "Coast"?
One might think that if the person writing knew enough NOT to worry about
the translating, and including that translation, of "De la", they would also
know that. However, I suppose it's just as possible that the opposite is
true. And after all, written English wasn't exactly standardized yet, was
it?

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> The family definitely existed in the 15th century. The suggestion is that Richard Rivers was in fact the son of Richard Woodville, last Lord Rivers, and that he was defrauded of the Earldom by having this fake ancestry (the first few names) invented for him. 

>In fact neither are included in the Woodville ancestry; the title is more properly "Rievers" and refers to a Lordship in Normandy awarded to the family during the English occupation of France in the Lancastrian period. Several English magnates retained such titles, even after the lands concerned had been reconquered by France. 


Probably coincidentally, but aptly, "reive" is a Scots word for plundering and raiding. Sort of applies to the Woodvilles.

Katy