New Member

Hi everyone,

Having just joined I thought I would introduce myself. I am also a
new member to the Richard III Society, just waiting for my pack to
arrive. I have read many books on Richard so have some knowledge and
I am looking forward to reading through the message boards etc.

nice evening to everyone

medievalgirluk

Ann wrote: "... we cannot know what medieval parents
thought about losing their offspring in such numbers,
but I tend to think that there was a certain fatalism
which no longer exists."

***

I think the medical advances of the 19th and 20th
centuries have to make a difference between the way
they felt and the way we feel. Medieval parents didn't
know that fleas and viruses and bacteria caused the
illnesses that killed their children. That lack of
understanding left them with ideas like Divine
Retribution or God's Will, which couldn't help much
with diagnosis and treatment.

In my reading so far, I've found myself asking what
could have killed so many of Richard's brothers and
sisters and Edward of Middleham. I haven't seen any
causes mentioned. Apparently they didn't know or
didn't think it was worth recording the causes of
death.

Hopefully I'll find some answers as I continue reading
Medieval Children.

Marion

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com

--- In , marion davis
<phaecilia@y...> wrote:
> Ann wrote: "... we cannot know what medieval parents
> thought about losing their offspring in such numbers,
> but I tend to think that there was a certain fatalism
> which no longer exists."
>
> ***
>
> I think the medical advances of the 19th and 20th
> centuries have to make a difference between the way
> they felt and the way we feel. Medieval parents didn't
> know that fleas and viruses and bacteria caused the
> illnesses that killed their children. That lack of
> understanding left them with ideas like Divine
> Retribution or God's Will, which couldn't help much
> with diagnosis and treatment.
>
> In my reading so far, I've found myself asking what
> could have killed so many of Richard's brothers and
> sisters and Edward of Middleham. I haven't seen any
> causes mentioned. Apparently they didn't know or
> didn't think it was worth recording the causes of
> death.
>
> Hopefully I'll find some answers as I continue reading
> Medieval Children.
>
> Marion
>
Well, it's not that often you'll have a cause of death recorded even
for an adult. Diagnosis was dodgy even in much later times. Early GRO
death certificates in England (start 1837) are often very vague about
cause of death, and autopsies were not that common unless an inquest
was called for. And medieval inquests didn't even have the benefit of
anything more than a visual post mortem examination.
Marie
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
> http://webhosting.yahoo.com

New to the forum (but not Richard III - its been a passion for over
35 years - I started early)

Read some of the previous topics and found them really interesting -
for the record do not think R3 was responsible for the death of the
princes - think the youngest outlived R3 (prehaps the elder died in
the Tower).

Interested in Perkin Warbeck - could be a contender

also recently become more interested in Jack Leslau's thoery - as the
DNA is available this at least could be investigated, does anyone
know if this has reached a conclusion.

Think the Urn should be better investigated for the purposes of
science and history - it would probably produce more questions - but
at least open the debate.

Can anyone answer the following or point me in the direction of
literature that may help

Where is Elizabeth Woodville buried?

Did Edward 4 have bastard sons and did they in turn have offspring?

John of Gloucester - did he marry?

It was rumoured that Perkin Warbeck had children - if so does anyone
know more details about them ?

Hope to hear from the forum soon

Many thanks

Another Marion

Hi Marion & welcome,

I'm posting this reply on behalf of Furryfiend, who is suffering from
Bouncing Email Syndrome.


You wrote:
> Can anyone answer the following or point me in the direction of
> literature that may help
>
> Where is Elizabeth Woodville buried?

"EW died at Bermondsey Abbey on 8 June 1492 and was buried at St
George's Chapel, Windsor on 10 June at 11pm, quite secretly."
>
> Did Edward 4 have bastard sons and did they in turn have offspring?
>
> John of Gloucester - did he marry?
>
> It was rumoured that Perkin Warbeck had children - if so does
anyone
> know more details about them ?

"No known offspring for Warbeck or illegitimate acknowledged children
of E4 though Warbeck may have been an unacknowledged one. To the best
of my knowledge no offspring for Warbeck (who married Catherine
Gordon) or John of Gloucester."
Furryfiend

Hi again.

No a reply on behalf of me!

>
> Did Edward 4 have bastard sons and did they in turn have offspring?

Thee's a good article on Edward IV's bastards by Peter Hammond in the
Society's recent Festschrift. In short, there may have been several
acknowledged bastards, but only one son:
a) NO children by Lady Eleanor Butler
b) by Elizabeth, Lady Lucy (maiden name Wayte), a son ARTHUR Wayte
aka Plantagenet, possibly born 1462-4. In 1502 he was taken into
Elizabeth of York's household. In 1523 he married the Lisle heiress
and was created Viscount Lisle. In 1540 he was imprisoned in the
Tower on a charge of treason, and died there in 1542. No children
mentioned in the article, but you could check the Complete Peerage.
c) Elizabeth, married Thomas Lord Lumley. Mother unknown.
d)Dame Isabel Mylbery, wife of Lord audley's brother John, may have
been a daughter of Edward IV as she was apparently brought up in his
household and her arms were murrey & blue with a white roses & lions
e)the wife of Henry Harman was said in the Kent Visitation of 1574 to
have been a daughter of Edward IV. Her name may have been Mary.
Again, the arms included a murrey chevron and a white rose.
f) "Mistress Grace, a bastard daughter of King Edward", who attended
the funeral of Elizabeth Woodville.

Marie



>
> John of Gloucester - did he marry?

Not so far as is known. John's history is the subject of earlier
messages.
>
> It was rumoured that Perkin Warbeck had children - if so does
anyone
> know more details about them ?

Wendy Moorhen has recently written on Perkin Warbeck in the
Ricardian. If I remember rightly, it all comes down to interpretation
of one particular text.
>
Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> Hi again.
>
> No a reply on behalf of me!
>
> >
> > Did Edward 4 have bastard sons and did they in turn have
offspring?
>
> Thee's a good article on Edward IV's bastards by Peter Hammond in
the
> Society's recent Festschrift. In short, there may have been several
> acknowledged bastards, but only one son:
> a) NO children by Lady Eleanor Butler
> b) by Elizabeth, Lady Lucy (maiden name Wayte), a son ARTHUR Wayte
> aka Plantagenet, possibly born 1462-4. In 1502 he was taken into
> Elizabeth of York's household. In 1523 he married the Lisle heiress
> and was created Viscount Lisle. In 1540 he was imprisoned in the
> Tower on a charge of treason, and died there in 1542. No children
> mentioned in the article, but you could check the Complete Peerage.
> c) Elizabeth, married Thomas Lord Lumley. Mother unknown.
> d)Dame Isabel Mylbery, wife of Lord audley's brother John, may have
> been a daughter of Edward IV as she was apparently brought up in
his
> household and her arms were murrey & blue with a white roses & lions
> e)the wife of Henry Harman was said in the Kent Visitation of 1574
to
> have been a daughter of Edward IV. Her name may have been Mary.
> Again, the arms included a murrey chevron and a white rose.
> f) "Mistress Grace, a bastard daughter of King Edward", who
attended
> the funeral of Elizabeth Woodville.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
> >
> > John of Gloucester - did he marry?
>
> Not so far as is known. John's history is the subject of earlier
> messages.
> >
> > It was rumoured that Perkin Warbeck had children - if so does
> anyone
> > know more details about them ?
>
> Wendy Moorhen has recently written on Perkin Warbeck in the
> Ricardian. If I remember rightly, it all comes down to
interpretation
> of one particular text.
> >
> Marie

Has anyone but me thought that every event in the life of
Arthur "Plantagenet" seems to take place about 20 years later than it
normally would? If he was born in 1462-64 he would have been around
40 years old when he was taken into Elizabeth of York's household --
which could mean a number of different things -- and he would have
been more than 60 when he married for the first and only time, and I
believe he was Captain of Calais when he was arrested for treason,
which would have been when he was nearly eighty. Possible, I
suppose, but despite Mildred Whatshername's devotion to him, I still
find it dubious.

>> Has anyone but me thought that every event in the life of
> Arthur "Plantagenet" seems to take place about 20 years later than
it
> normally would? If he was born in 1462-64 he would have been
around
> 40 years old when he was taken into Elizabeth of York's household --

> which could mean a number of different things -- and he would have
> been more than 60 when he married for the first and only time, and
I
> believe he was Captain of Calais when he was arrested for treason,
> which would have been when he was nearly eighty. Possible, I
> suppose, but despite Mildred Whatshername's devotion to him, I
still
> find it dubious.

Yes, you're right. I'd never really given any thought to Arthur
Plantagenet, but it occurred to me as I was bashing that out last
night that it seemed a late marriage. But if I can quote in full from
Peter Hammond (my notes in square brackets):
"... firstly, the only child who is certainly Edward's is Arthur
Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle. His life has recently been described at
great length by several authors [he quotes Given-Wilson &
Curteis 'Bastards', M. St claire-Byrne 'The Lisle Letters' vol 1, and
Complete Peerage], so only brief details are given here. The date of
Lisle's birth is not known, it was possibly in the early 1460s,
between 1462 and 1464, certainly before 1470 and his mother was
almost certainly Elizabeth Lucy, born Wayte, as Lisle was called
Arthur Wayte in his youth. He was taken into the household of his
half-sister, Elizabeth of York, circa 1502 and remained in royal
service for the rest of his life. He was created Viscount Lisle in
consequence of his marriage to the Lisle heiress in 1523 [I suppose
this may just mean he was created Viscount Lisle in 1523, in which
case he may actually have married much earlier than this]. He died
aged about eighty years of age in 1542, just as he was about to be
released from the Tower, where he had been imprisoned for nearly two
years on a probably false charge of treason by his nephew, Henry
VIII. There is no doubt at all that Arthur was a son of Edward IV,
his arms were 'England and France quarterly, quartered by Ulster and
March, overall a bendlet sinister azure'. These were similar to the
arms of Elizabeth of York, in her case of course without the bendlet
signifying bastardy. Lisle's livery colours were the Yorkist murrey
and blue and his standard was powdered with the falcon and fetterlock
badge charged with a bendlet sinister. Lisle's mother, Elizabeth
Waite, was born about 1445; she was of a Hampshire family and married
a Lucy, possibly Sir William Lucy, of the Warwickshire Lucys. She was
probably dead by 1487 and possibly by 1482." (p.230)

So, to summarise, he may have been born as late as 1470, and may have
married before 1523. And some other sources to check out.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> >> Has anyone but me thought that every event in the life of
> > Arthur "Plantagenet" seems to take place about 20 years later
than
> it
> > normally would? If he was born in 1462-64 he would have been
> around
> > 40 years old when he was taken into Elizabeth of York's
household --
>
> > which could mean a number of different things -- and he would
have
> > been more than 60 when he married for the first and only time,
and
> I
> > believe he was Captain of Calais when he was arrested for
treason,
> > which would have been when he was nearly eighty. Possible, I
> > suppose, but despite Mildred Whatshername's devotion to him, I
> still
> > find it dubious.
>
> Yes, you're right. I'd never really given any thought to Arthur
> Plantagenet, but it occurred to me as I was bashing that out last
> night that it seemed a late marriage. But if I can quote in full
from
> Peter Hammond (my notes in square brackets):
> "... firstly, the only child who is certainly Edward's is Arthur
> Plantagenet, Viscount Lisle. His life has recently been described
at
> great length by several authors [he quotes Given-Wilson &
> Curteis 'Bastards', M. St claire-Byrne 'The Lisle Letters' vol 1,
and
> Complete Peerage], so only brief details are given here. The date
of
> Lisle's birth is not known, it was possibly in the early 1460s,
> between 1462 and 1464, certainly before 1470 and his mother was
> almost certainly Elizabeth Lucy, born Wayte, as Lisle was called
> Arthur Wayte in his youth. He was taken into the household of his
> half-sister, Elizabeth of York, circa 1502 and remained in royal
> service for the rest of his life. He was created Viscount Lisle in
> consequence of his marriage to the Lisle heiress in 1523 [I suppose
> this may just mean he was created Viscount Lisle in 1523, in which
> case he may actually have married much earlier than this]. He died
> aged about eighty years of age in 1542, just as he was about to be
> released from the Tower, where he had been imprisoned for nearly
two
> years on a probably false charge of treason by his nephew, Henry
> VIII. There is no doubt at all that Arthur was a son of Edward IV,
> his arms were 'England and France quarterly, quartered by Ulster
and
> March, overall a bendlet sinister azure'. These were similar to the
> arms of Elizabeth of York, in her case of course without the
bendlet
> signifying bastardy. Lisle's livery colours were the Yorkist murrey
> and blue and his standard was powdered with the falcon and
fetterlock
> badge charged with a bendlet sinister. Lisle's mother, Elizabeth
> Waite, was born about 1445; she was of a Hampshire family and
married
> a Lucy, possibly Sir William Lucy, of the Warwickshire Lucys. She
was
> probably dead by 1487 and possibly by 1482." (p.230)
>
> So, to summarise, he may have been born as late as 1470, and may
have
> married before 1523. And some other sources to check out.
>
> Marie


Being a lover of conspiracy theories and wild speculations, I was
struck by the number of "almost cetainly"'s and no doubt at all"'s in
that quote, which of course made me doubt the information all the
more. It doth protest too much. (I meant Muriel, not Mildred,
Whatshername, who researched and edited The Lisle Letters, in my
previous post. She is so in love with dear Arthur -- I suspect he
comes to her at night in her narrow bed -- that if she weren't such a
respected scholar I'd want to look under her desk blotter to see what
inconvenient facts and nonconforming data she had shoved under there
during during her research.)

By the way, I loved dear Arthur, Lord Lisle's, crest in the
fronrispieceof the Lisle Letters...the very image of a leopard
changing its spots.

Refresh my memory, someone, if you would. Isn't Charles Brandon, son
of Henry VII nee Tudor's standard-beared William Brandon, who got in
Richard's way at Bosworth, more or less, and saved Henry's skinny
posterior, involved with Arthur Plantagenet somehow? His widow was
Lady Lisle who became Mrs P and gave Arthur his tile?

I've found a Lisle website with the following additional information:

1. Arthur's wife, Elizabeth Grey of Lisle, was a widow when he
married her. Her first husband, Edmund Dudley, was executed in 1510.
According to this site, her marriage to Arthur Plantagenet took place
on 12 November 1511. So Arthur would have been between 41 and 49
according to the range of birthdates given by Hammond. This is very
old for a first marriage, but is it possible that he too was a widow
but there is no surviving documentation for the first marriage?

The site gives three daughters, Frances, Elizabeth and Bridget, but I
think I'd want to check that these weren't the children of Elizabeth
Grey's first marriage, to Dudley.


Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> I've found a Lisle website with the following additional
information:
>
> 1. Arthur's wife, Elizabeth Grey of Lisle, was a widow when he
> married her. Her first husband, Edmund Dudley, was executed in
1510.
> According to this site, her marriage to Arthur Plantagenet took
place
> on 12 November 1511. So Arthur would have been between 41 and 49
> according to the range of birthdates given by Hammond. This is very
> old for a first marriage, but is it possible that he too was a
widow
> but there is no surviving documentation for the first marriage?
>
> The site gives three daughters, Frances, Elizabeth and Bridget, but
I
> think I'd want to check that these weren't the children of
Elizabeth
> Grey's first marriage, to Dudley.
>
>
> Marie

Hi Marie,
Would you let me have the address for the Lisle website? I am doing a
dissertation which may involve the Lisle letters and any information
that I can get hold of is most welcome. I have been reading the
forum for a few weeks now, and am a staunch Ricardian, I believe that
Buckingham was involved in the dissapearance of the boys, but don't
have time to expound my theories now. I am enthralled by the amount
of knowledge that most of the people who write here have, and look
forward to joining in at some point.
Carole

--- In , carolenewb
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > I've found a Lisle website with the following additional
> information:
> >
> > 1. Arthur's wife, Elizabeth Grey of Lisle, was a widow when he
> > married her. Her first husband, Edmund Dudley, was executed in
> 1510.
> > According to this site, her marriage to Arthur Plantagenet took
> place
> > on 12 November 1511. So Arthur would have been between 41 and 49
> > according to the range of birthdates given by Hammond. This is
very
> > old for a first marriage, but is it possible that he too was a
> widow
> > but there is no surviving documentation for the first marriage?
> >
> > The site gives three daughters, Frances, Elizabeth and Bridget,
but
> I
> > think I'd want to check that these weren't the children of
> Elizabeth
> > Grey's first marriage, to Dudley.
> >
> >
> > Marie
>
> Hi Marie,
> Would you let me have the address for the Lisle website? I am doing
a
> dissertation which may involve the Lisle letters and any
information
> that I can get hold of is most welcome. I have been reading the
> forum for a few weeks now, and am a staunch Ricardian, I believe
that
> Buckingham was involved in the dissapearance of the boys, but don't
> have time to expound my theories now. I am enthralled by the amount
> of knowledge that most of the people who write here have, and look
> forward to joining in at some point.
> Carole

Please do join in, Carole. Everyone is more knoiwledgable than I am,
as you may hve noticed, and they all treat me kindly.

>
> Hi Marie,
> Would you let me have the address for the Lisle website? I am doing
a
> dissertation which may involve the Lisle letters and any
information
> that I can get hold of is most welcome. I have been reading the
> forum for a few weeks now, and am a staunch Ricardian, I believe
that
> Buckingham was involved in the dissapearance of the boys, but don't
> have time to expound my theories now. I am enthralled by the amount
> of knowledge that most of the people who write here have, and look
> forward to joining in at some point.
> Carole

I got the site by doing a search on the words 'Viscount Lisle'. It
brought up a number of links. I tried taking down the name but it was
such mouthful I think you'd be best doing google search or similar
yourself.

Would be really interested in your theories on Buckingham

Marie

I am sending this for the second time. For some reason it didn't get posted the first time.


I am a new member of this group forum and just got my approval today. Unfortunately I am leaving town in the morning and won't be back until the weekend - but that's the great thing about e-mail. We can each communicate when it suits.
I am a fairly recent convert to interest in Richard III and am looking forward to learning more from you who are experts. From what I understand I am not alone in being attracted to the "case" by reading Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time." I have read internet articles and recently acquired "Richard The Third" by Paul Murray Kendall but have not yet read it. Has anyone read this biography...and if so is it accurate? Is is pro or anti Richard or does it just report known facts?
Have a great week.
Amy Barkman
age 63
Kentucky

--- In , "Amy Barkman"
<amygary@...> wrote:
>
>
> I am sending this for the second time. For some reason
it didn't get posted the first time.
>
>
> I am a new member of this group forum and just got my approval
today. Unfortunately I am leaving town in the morning and won't be
back until the weekend - but that's the great thing about e-mail. We
can each communicate when it suits.
> I am a fairly recent convert to interest in Richard III and am
looking forward to learning more from you who are experts. From what
I understand I am not alone in being attracted to the "case" by
reading Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time." I have read internet
articles and recently acquired "Richard The Third" by Paul Murray
Kendall but have not yet read it. Has anyone read this
biography...and if so is it accurate? Is is pro or anti Richard or
does it just report known facts?
> Have a great week.
> Amy Barkman
> age 63
> Kentucky
>
>
>
>
>
Welcome aboard. Kendall is regarded as a very authoritative source.
It was written about thirty years ago but has not really been
superseded as a full independent biography.

Welcome Amy.



Kendall is usually judged to be pro-Richard but in truth I've never read a
history book yet which just gives the facts. And to be honest, it would be
pretty boring stuff. :) It isn't the facts that fascinate but the whys. Why
did Richard trust Buckingham? What were the Woodvilles really up to, and
why? Were they just protecting their family interests as Richard may have
been doing? Or were their motives more sinister (as Richard's are so often
assumed to be)? Why did Richard take the crown? Why did Hastings rebel (or
did he)? Why was Clarence such a fool? Did Richard's mother really have it
away with an archer and thus beget Edward? And on and on and on . . .



I'd recommend reading Ross's biography of Richard next to give a different
view and then have a look at Jones' book "Bosworth" for some modern
contentious stuff (that is also a really good read - Ross can be a little
dry). But as in all things, read as much as you can and then make up your
own mind.



As the modern historian, AJP Taylor once said (and I paraphrase) "there is
no such thing as an account of history only an interpretation of it". And if
there can be that much doubt about the modern era, just think how much more
scope for speculation in our own period.



Welcome to the debate. And remember, whatever some tell you, there is not
absolute truth just opinion. Enjoy.



Cheers

Jan





_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Amy Barkman
Sent: 28 August 2006 02:51
To:
Subject: New Member




I am sending this for the second time. For some reason it didn't get posted
the first time.

I am a new member of this group forum and just got my approval today.
Unfortunately I am leaving town in the morning and won't be back until the
weekend - but that's the great thing about e-mail. We can each communicate
when it suits.
I am a fairly recent convert to interest in Richard III and am looking
forward to learning more from you who are experts. From what I understand I
am not alone in being attracted to the "case" by reading Josephine Tey's
"Daughter of Time." I have read internet articles and recently acquired
"Richard The Third" by Paul Murray Kendall but have not yet read it. Has
anyone read this biography...and if so is it accurate? Is is pro or anti
Richard or does it just report known facts?
Have a great week.
Amy Barkman
age 63
Kentucky