Re: [Richard III Society Forum] The fate of King Edward V and his b

The Dukedom of Norfolk was a new creation for Richard Duke of York. Howard
had no legal claim to the Dukedom held by the Mowbray's though he may have
had a claim to the earlier Earldom of Norfolk which I suspect was tail
general.
Richard of York received his titles Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Nottingham
ahead of his marriage to Anne Mowbray. He held the Mowbray estates for his
lifetime by Parliamentary grant - if he died without issue then they were to
revert to the heirs of his father Edward IV.

As the Parliamentary Act confirming the holdings was never repealed he
retained those estates irrespective of his brother's deposition. Likewise
the titles he bore were Royal Creations and again unaffected by the removal
of Edward V. The fact that Howard was one of Richard's earliest supporters
and was granted the Dukedom and many of the estates suggests that he was
confident that the Prince was not in a position to protest.

Titles were in the gift of the crown so arguably it was within Richard's
right to remove them from his nephew (Berkely got the Nottingham titles).
However there is no evidence that he did so - just handed them out to other
people.

The Mowbray estates heirs general were split and consisted of the Berkeley's
and the Howards - technically as both were descended from sisters they were
co-heirs and the holdings should have been split equally between them.
However the Parliamentary grant overrode that right and Berkely had settled
his claim with Edward IV.

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "lomondhandley" <lomondhandley@...>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:22 PM
Subject: The fate of King Edward V and his
brother Prince Richard Duke of York


> Has anyone examined the writings of Dr Argenti, a member of the young
> king's household, who subsequently became provost of a Cambridge
> college, to see whether these throw any light on the fate of the two
> boys?
>
> Dr Argenti was said to be devoted to Edward V and his father.
>
> Also, when did Prince Richard of York lose his Dukedom of Norfolk,
> which was taken away from him and given to one of the Howard
> claimants?
>
> This couldn't have taken place in the young prince's lifetime. Or
> could it?
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

--- In , "tim" <tmc_dale@y...>
wrote:
> The Dukedom of Norfolk was a new creation for Richard Duke of
York. Howard
> had no legal claim to the Dukedom held by the Mowbray's though he
may have
> had a claim to the earlier Earldom of Norfolk which I suspect was
tail
> general.

You make it sound as though there were no duke of Norfolk before
this. I'm sure you don't mean to as of course the Mowbrays had been
dukes, rather than earls, of Norfolk long before the marriage of Anne
Mowbray to Prince Richard.

> Richard of York received his titles Duke of Norfolk and Earl of
Nottingham
> ahead of his marriage to Anne Mowbray. He held the Mowbray estates
for his
> lifetime by Parliamentary grant - if he died without issue then
they were to
> revert to the heirs of his father Edward IV.

This is true, but this was really not very fair. Anne was her
father's heiress, and without Edward's legalised chicanery, in the
event of her dying in childhood the title would have been passd down
within the family as you yourself have set out below. All Richard
seems to have done is to restore the estates to their 'natural'
heirs. I do not consider, and nor do most historians, that this
proves Richard Duke of York to be dead. He also did this with the
Exeter estates, which an Act of Parliament had vested in the daughter
his sister Ann Duchess of Exeter by her second husband Thomas St
Leger (Ann had 'divorced' Exeter). Not only was this child not the
Duke of Exeter's, but it was a girl and the estates were held in tail
male. Richard restored these to the 'natural' heir, the son of
Exeter's sister. Again, this just happened to be a supporter of his,
the Lord Neville to whom he wrote the famous letter in June 1483.
Although St Leger had been executed following his part in
Buckingham's rebellion, his daughter was certainly still alive, and
went on to marry and produce a family which is still going strong.
Marie

>
> As the Parliamentary Act confirming the holdings was never repealed
he
> retained those estates irrespective of his brother's deposition.
Likewise
> the titles he bore were Royal Creations and again unaffected by the
removal
> of Edward V. The fact that Howard was one of Richard's earliest
supporters
> and was granted the Dukedom and many of the estates suggests that
he was
> confident that the Prince was not in a position to protest.
>
> Titles were in the gift of the crown so arguably it was within
Richard's
> right to remove them from his nephew (Berkely got the Nottingham
titles).
> However there is no evidence that he did so - just handed them out
to other
> people.
>
> The Mowbray estates heirs general were split and consisted of the
Berkeley's
> and the Howards - technically as both were descended from sisters
they were
> co-heirs and the holdings should have been split equally between
them.
> However the Parliamentary grant overrode that right and Berkely had
settled
> his claim with Edward IV.
>
> Tim
>


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lomondhandley" <lomondhandley@y...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:22 PM
> Subject: The fate of King Edward V and
his
> brother Prince Richard Duke of York
>
>
> > Has anyone examined the writings of Dr Argenti, a member of the
young
> > king's household, who subsequently became provost of a Cambridge
> > college, to see whether these throw any light on the fate of the
two
> > boys?
> >
> > Dr Argenti was said to be devoted to Edward V and his father.
> >
> > Also, when did Prince Richard of York lose his Dukedom of Norfolk,
> > which was taken away from him and given to one of the Howard
> > claimants?
> >
> > This couldn't have taken place in the young prince's lifetime. Or
> > could it?
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >

<Has anyone examined the writings of Dr Argenti, a member of the young
king's household, who subsequently became provost of a Cambridge
college, to see whether these throw any light on the fate of the two
boys?>

I haven't examined the writings, just read enough to understand that
Argentine didn't comment at all on either of the Princes, even though
he could have done so after Richard's death. The other interesting
chap of the period is Bishop Alcock - the boy's tutor and one of E4's
executors. Not only did he stay resolutely silent on the subject of
the his former charge, but he accompanied R3 on Progress and even
served as his Chancellor in the summer of 1485, after Russell was
relieved of the post! He went on to serve Tudor in the same position
for a time - but not a word did he say about the Princes.

Time servers? Or was there genuinely nothing to say?

Lorraine

Hi Marie

< You make it sound as though there were no duke of Norfolk before
this. >

I perhaps shouldn't speak for Tim, but I don't think he actually
meant to make it sound like that as I'm sure most of us already knew
John Mowbray had also held that particular title. I'm pretty sure
Richard was 'righting a wrong' by giving Howard the Dukedom, but I'm
also pretty sure that Jack Howard was the first Duke of Norfolk *of
that particular creation*.

Tim correctly pointed out that this particular Dukedom was in fact
a 'new creation' created under an entirely new grant in June 1483,
with the Mowbray Dukedom of Norfolk being another, older, creation.
Thus it was distinquished/distanced from the creations granted to
both previous incumbents.

IIRC, similar happened regarding the title of Earl of Northumberland,
when it passed from the Percies to John Neville. (Though when it
passed back to Percy Jnr, I don't think it was considered a 'new'
creation, but I'd have to check).

Lorraine

I am sorry Marie you seem to be suggesting that I was implying more than I
was - I don't think it proves anything about Richard Duke of York and
Norfolk at all.

Although it is surprising that Howard didn't press Richard to repeal the
earlier act confirming York's entitlement to the Mowbray estates.


> This is true, but this was really not very fair. Anne was her
> father's heiress, and without Edward's legalised chicanery, in the
> event of her dying in childhood the title would have been passd down
> within the family as you yourself have set out below.

No it wouldn't have done - the dukedom was entailed and on the death of the
last Mowbray Duke of Norfolk reverted to the crown as did the Earldom of
Nottingham - Anne Mobray herself may have been entitled to the earlier
Earldom of Norfolk which came to her from Margaret of Brotherton and various
of the Mowbray Baronies. The co-heirs of Anne Mowbray were - Lord Berkely
and Howard - under English law co-heirs through a female usually had to wait
until the reversion was there's alone before assuming the title. For
example Baron X dies leaving a son (Y) and two daughters (1 & 2) - Baron Y
dies childless his title is in abeyance between the coheirs - Daughter 1 and
Daughter 2 - daughter 1 has one son (a) and daughter 2 has one son (b) - a
and b both claim the barony through their mothers but only on the death of b
does a receive confirmation and get the barony. The estates would probably
have been divided equally between the two daughters though.

Now this wasn't written in stone - if one of the co-heirs had friends in
high places and was say the son of the elder daughter and had married well
gaining further influence he may persuade the crown to recognise his claim
over that of a cousin.

Whilst Edward did breach the usual practices in providing for his second
son - he was actually treating him as if Anne Mowbray had died as an adult.
When a man married an heiress or a widow - he could usually expect to enjoy
her property in the event of her predeceasing him for the duration of his
life - especially if they had children together. Though sometimes in the
case of a widow or an heiress with close relations he may find if his
marriage was childless that his claim is ended before his death and the
property reverts to her heirs.

All Richard
> seems to have done is to restore the estates to their 'natural'
> heirs. I do not consider, and nor do most historians, that this
> proves Richard Duke of York to be dead.

Certainly Richard restored a portion of the Mowbray estates to the co-heirs
at law - but not all of it. Berkeley it could be argued had no remaining
rights having disposed of his reversions to Edward IV in return for a
cancellation of his debts to the crown. Howard retained his reversionary
rights however the Act of Parliament had effectively nullifed them so at law
he had none. To not repeal the act left him open to attack had Edward V
been restored..he was exceptionally lucky.

He also did this with the
> Exeter estates, which an Act of Parliament had vested in the daughter
> his sister Ann Duchess of Exeter by her second husband Thomas St
> Leger (Ann had 'divorced' Exeter). Not only was this child not the
> Duke of Exeter's, but it was a girl and the estates were held in tail
> male. Richard restored these to the 'natural' heir, the son of
> Exeter's sister. Again, this just happened to be a supporter of his,
> the Lord Neville to whom he wrote the famous letter in June 1483.
> Although St Leger had been executed following his part in
> Buckingham's rebellion, his daughter was certainly still alive, and
> went on to marry and produce a family which is still going strong.
> Marie

The Exeter estates are a different issue. Holland would under normal
circumstances have been attainted - his estates forfeit to the crown and his
title dead in the water. To protect his niece and sister Edward chose not
to attaint him instead confirming his sisters right to hold them during her
lifetime and then to her daughter by Exeter Anne Holland who was to marry
Thomas Grey. However the initial 1467 agreement had stated that if Anne
Holland died without issue the estates were to pass to her mother and her
mother's heirs - this dented the agreement Edward IV had made with his Queen
who'd paid £4,000 for the marriage with the assurance that if Anne died
childless any properties reverting to the crown would go to the Queen. So
the new act which was drawn up protected the Holland inheritance for the St
Leger girl and it seems likely that she would have married one of Thomas
Grey's sons in time. A portion of the holding was also reserved for Lord
Richard Grey. Technically all highly dodgy but technically Edward was
avoiding attainting his sister's first husband to protect her heirs -
arguably a Parliamentary grant being less likely to be challenged in the
future than a right to property only held due to a reversable attainder.
As you say Ralph Lord Neville was the nearest of the co-heirs however he was
rewarded out of forefeitures from the 1483 rebellion and certainly did not
receive anywhere near the entire Exeter inheritance - which as Horrox makes
plain was divided up amongst numerous of Richard's allies.

Let's be honest its allright to say Richard was doing the right thing in
restoring some property to some of the co-heirs who'd suffered losses due to
Edward's determination to provide for his family on the cheap and not out of
crown lands. But the bulk of both Richard and George's holdings were made
up of similarly applied deals. And Richard himself enjoyed much of his
property at the expense of the legal co-heirs of Warwick, Anne Countess of
Warwick, and Alice Countess of Salisbury and he seems to have made no effort
to restore any of them to their inheritance.

As I said on your main point I wasn't suggesting that the transfer suggests
anything about the Prince's survival or lack of survival. It is an
interesting point though that when the "private acts" dismantling the Exeter
agreement were going through Parliament in 1484 a similar act wasn't put
through dismantling the agreement over the Mowbray estates.




> >
> > As the Parliamentary Act confirming the holdings was never repealed
> he
> > retained those estates irrespective of his brother's deposition.
> Likewise
> > the titles he bore were Royal Creations and again unaffected by the
> removal
> > of Edward V. The fact that Howard was one of Richard's earliest
> supporters
> > and was granted the Dukedom and many of the estates suggests that
> he was
> > confident that the Prince was not in a position to protest.
> >
> > Titles were in the gift of the crown so arguably it was within
> Richard's
> > right to remove them from his nephew (Berkely got the Nottingham
> titles).
> > However there is no evidence that he did so - just handed them out
> to other
> > people.
> >
> > The Mowbray estates heirs general were split and consisted of the
> Berkeley's
> > and the Howards - technically as both were descended from sisters
> they were
> > co-heirs and the holdings should have been split equally between
> them.
> > However the Parliamentary grant overrode that right and Berkely had
> settled
> > his claim with Edward IV.
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "lomondhandley" <lomondhandley@y...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:22 PM
> > Subject: The fate of King Edward V and
> his
> > brother Prince Richard Duke of York
> >
> >
> > > Has anyone examined the writings of Dr Argenti, a member of the
> young
> > > king's household, who subsequently became provost of a Cambridge
> > > college, to see whether these throw any light on the fate of the
> two
> > > boys?
> > >
> > > Dr Argenti was said to be devoted to Edward V and his father.
> > >
> > > Also, when did Prince Richard of York lose his Dukedom of Norfolk,
> > > which was taken away from him and given to one of the Howard
> > > claimants?
> > >
> > > This couldn't have taken place in the young prince's lifetime. Or
> > > could it?
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>