OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos

I Stumbled on this tonight, and the romantic in me has to share in case someone else might like it. This isn't a medieval castle like Middleham or Pontefract was, but it might be just as good to someone crazy about all things medieval. Since I can't go to Italy, I'm hoping someone on this list is closer, goes, and can report back.

How to tie it into Richard? I can't, except it's medieval. But if I squint at the rooms and pretend, I imagine it might be like staying in a drafty old castle. Sort of. With stone instead of wood ceilings and floors. In Italy rather than Britain.

Does England have any non-refurbished, drafty old castles tourists can stay in? That would be just...neat.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/20/the-italian-hotel-built-inside-abandoned-medieval-grottos/

~Weds

Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.

http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/


________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 3:29
Subject: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos

 

I Stumbled on this tonight, and the romantic in me has to share in case someone else might like it. This isn't a medieval castle like Middleham or Pontefract was, but it might be just as good to someone crazy about all things medieval. Since I can't go to Italy, I'm hoping someone on this list is closer, goes, and can report back.

How to tie it into Richard? I can't, except it's medieval. But if I squint at the rooms and pretend, I imagine it might be like staying in a drafty old castle. Sort of. With stone instead of wood ceilings and floors. In Italy rather than Britain.

Does England have any non-refurbished, drafty old castles tourists can stay in? That would be just...neat.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/01/20/the-italian-hotel-built-inside-abandoned-medieval-grottos/

~Weds

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
>
> http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/

Carol responds:

I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?

Carol

Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.

His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.

George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html





________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 


--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
>
> http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/

Carol responds:

I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?

Carol

I was just quoting the blurb on there!



________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 17:52
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos

 

Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.

His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.

George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
>
> http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/

Carol responds:

I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?

Carol

david rayner wrote:
>
> Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
>
> His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
>
> George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
>
> http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
>
Carol responds:

Thanks, David. I was only mildly curious because the date suggested Bosworth and Lord Lumley had Yorkist connections. I'm glad that his sons stayed loyal to Richard after their father's death. Presumably, they stayed neutral after Bosworth since it appears that the family prospered. At least they weren't among the self-interested Yorkists who went over to Tudor before Bosworth.

Carol

Carol

Hi,
just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
>
> His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
>
> George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
>
> http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> >
> > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Marie...can I just interrupt this thread to say I have read and enjoyed your Anne Neville article on the new website....What a change for the better. Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> >
> > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> >
> > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> >
> > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > >
> > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Ah, I remember that case. According to all known sources, we proved that Richard (Lord) Lumley and Alice Conyers could not need a dispensation through his father or maternal grandmother, however Edward IV was the only suggested grandfather who could have necessitated one. We called it the "Disputed Mistress".

----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos



Hi,
just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
>
> His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
>
> George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
>
> http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
> Â
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Weds, This is notÃ, at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã, Ã, Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> >
> > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

If she were known as Lady Lucy during her liaison with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?

William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.

Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.

http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc

So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.

Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 
Hi,
just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
>
> His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
>
> George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
>
> http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Weds, This is notà at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.àà Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> >
> > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
Carol responds:

So does that make three known mistresses altogether--Margaret Fitzlewis or Margaret Lucy (More's "Elizabeth Lucy"), Elizabeth Lambert (aka Mistress Shore), and Elizabeth Wayte? (I'm not counting Eleanor Butler, as I'm sure she was his wife, or Elizabeth Woodville, who probably thought she was his legal wife.) He certainly seems to have had a fondness for the name Elizabeth, or maybe every third girl in England had that name. Any thoughts on how these three fit with More's Edward's supposed remark (paraphrased in More) about the holiest, the wiliest, and the merriest harlot in the realm? (Well, we know More's characterization of Mistress Shore; I'm just wondering about the other two.)

Carol

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis,

I meant 'almost certainly' again, obviously!
Marie


the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> >
> > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> >
> > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> >
> > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > >
> > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks, Eileen. It could perhaps have been better if I'd had more time, but it can always be tweaked in the future.
Marie

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Marie...can I just interrupt this thread to say I have read and enjoyed your Anne Neville article on the new website....What a change for the better. Eileen
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > >
> > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > >
> > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > >
> > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Indeed - it was the dispensation for the son Richard Lumley and Alice Conyers, wasn't it? But yes, that was the upshot.
Marie

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Ah, I remember that case. According to all known sources, we proved that Richard (Lord) Lumley and Alice Conyers could not need a dispensation through his father or maternal grandmother, however Edward IV was the only suggested grandfather who could have necessitated one. We called it the "Disputed Mistress".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> >
> > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> >
> > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> >
> > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Weds, This is notÃ, at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã, Ã, Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > >
> > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> If she were known as Lady Lucy during her liaison with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
>
> William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
>
> Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
>
> http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
>
> So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
>
> Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> >
> > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> >
> > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> >
> > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Weds, This is not  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.   Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > >
> > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, that makes three. There's another possible daughter of Edward IV, with a different surname again, that Peter Hammond identified several years ao, and there may be a little more on that subject in the Ricardian Bulletin by the end of the year.
I would just take More's story as just another of More's stories. Apart from anything else, he seems to be imagining these three ladies sharing Edward's affections at the same time as each other. What little we have been able to find out about his mistresses suggests he preferred to have just one at a time but change them fairly frequently.
Marie


--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> So does that make three known mistresses altogether--Margaret Fitzlewis or Margaret Lucy (More's "Elizabeth Lucy"), Elizabeth Lambert (aka Mistress Shore), and Elizabeth Wayte? (I'm not counting Eleanor Butler, as I'm sure she was his wife, or Elizabeth Woodville, who probably thought she was his legal wife.) He certainly seems to have had a fondness for the name Elizabeth, or maybe every third girl in England had that name. Any thoughts on how these three fit with More's Edward's supposed remark (paraphrased in More) about the holiest, the wiliest, and the merriest harlot in the realm? (Well, we know More's characterization of Mistress Shore; I'm just wondering about the other two.)
>
> Carol
>

Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.

Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false


http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 
It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> If she were known as Lady Lucy during her liaison with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
>
> William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
>
> Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
>
> http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
>
> So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
>
> Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> Hi,
> just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> >
> > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> >
> > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> >
> > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Weds, This is notÃ’â¬aà at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã’â¬aàÒâ¬aà Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > >
> > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
>
> Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
>
>
> http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > If she were known as Lady Lucy during her liaison with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> >
> > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> >
> > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> >
> > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> >
> > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> >
> > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > >
> > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > >
> > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > >
> > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃÆ'‚  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'‚  Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Marie wrote:


"The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each
other..."
//snip//

Sounds exactly like the early "Histories"!
Doug

I just joined. What the society has done is very exciting. I imagine that a proper museum and library will be expensive. What about having a section in a formal funeral for subscribers. I'd be willing to part with $300 for such a privelege if the money went to the cause, and I'm American. This story has grabbed the interest of many on this side of the Atlantic.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
Sender:
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:57:45
To: <>
Reply-To:
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos

The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
>
> Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
>
>
> http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
> ýý
> It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herýýýýliaisonýýýýwith Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> >
> > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> >
> > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> >
> > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> >
> > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> >
> > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > ýýýý
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > >
> > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > >
> > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > >
> > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýýýýýýýý
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Weds, This is notýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.

It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake. 
Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind". 


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 
The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
>
> Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
>
>
> http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > If she were known as Lady Lucy during heràliaisonàwith Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> >
> > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> >
> > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> >
> > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> >
> > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> >
> > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > à
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > >
> > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > >
> > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > >
> > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I can imagine the list of people on the battle field would be almost useless. It is hard enough in more modern times.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "david rayner" <theblackprussian@...<mailto:theblackprussian@...>> wrote:



I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.

It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake.
Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind".

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos



The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, david rayner wrote:
>
> Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
>
> Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
>
>
> http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
> ý
> It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> Marie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, david rayner wrote:
> >
> > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herýýý liaisonýýý with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> >
> > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> >
> > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> >
> > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca<http://d.ca>.1496).doc
> >
> > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> >
> > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > ýýý
> > Hi,
> > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > >
> > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > >
> > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > >
> > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > > ýýýýýýýý
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Weds, This is notýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý ýýý'ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi,
I'm not sure what your problem is. There were about three separate references that went with that note of Michael Hicks that I quoted, so it does not look as though he is relying on one source. You really need to check it out for yourself.

1) Is it possible that Margaret was married to both brothers? No. First, she only lived until 1466. Her marriage was annulled because Thomas Danvers got papal endorsement of his claim that she had already married him clandestinely. She was therefore declared to be legally the wife of Thomas Danvers. She couldn't marry anyone else - think it through. And if she had been free, and wanted to marry Thomas Wake's brother, she would have needed a papal dispensation first, because by having sex with Thomas, even if they weren't legally married, she had brought herself into 1st-degree affinity with his brother John.

2) I'm not sure why you're (apparently) finding Thomas Wake's marriage to Lady Latimer a hurdle, since until right at the end of 1469 - three years after Margaret FitzLewis' death - Lady L. was the wife of George Neville Lord Latimer. I don't know when she married Thomas Wake, but it can have been no earlier than 1470 so there is no conflict at all with Thomas' brief marriage to Lady Lucy.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by your last para. Are you thinking Roger would therefore have been Margaret Lucy's child and therefore a bastard? Not so. He was the son of a previous marriage of Thomas Wake's, though we don't yet know the mother's name. The child Lady Lucy bore Thomas Wake was named John.

Marie


--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.
>
> It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake. 
> Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
> Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind". 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
> >
> > Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
> >
> > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
> >
> >
> > http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> > It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > If she were known as Lady Lucy during her liaison with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> > >
> > > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> > >
> > > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> > >
> > > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> > >
> > > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> > >
> > > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Hi,
> > > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > > >
> > > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > > >
> > > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > > >
> > > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK, I'll look further into it.

Just to be certain of what Hicks maintains:

1. Thomas Wake sn (d1458) m Agnes Lovel, mother of

Thomas Wake jn (d1476)

who married

(1) Unknown, mother of

1- Roger Wake (d1503) m Elizabeth Catesby
2 - William Wake

(2) Margaret FitzJohn (widow of William Lucy), mother of 

John Wake; this marriage dissolved on grounds of precontract with Thomas Danvers (presumably this made John Wake illegitimate?)

(3) Elizabeth Beauchamp (widow of George Neville of Latimer)



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:27
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 

Hi,
I'm not sure what your problem is. There were about three separate references that went with that note of Michael Hicks that I quoted, so it does not look as though he is relying on one source. You really need to check it out for yourself.

1) Is it possible that Margaret was married to both brothers? No. First, she only lived until 1466. Her marriage was annulled because Thomas Danvers got papal endorsement of his claim that she had already married him clandestinely. She was therefore declared to be legally the wife of Thomas Danvers. She couldn't marry anyone else - think it through. And if she had been free, and wanted to marry Thomas Wake's brother, she would have needed a papal dispensation first, because by having sex with Thomas, even if they weren't legally married, she had brought herself into 1st-degree affinity with his brother John.

2) I'm not sure why you're (apparently) finding Thomas Wake's marriage to Lady Latimer a hurdle, since until right at the end of 1469 - three years after Margaret FitzLewis' death - Lady L. was the wife of George Neville Lord Latimer. I don't know when she married Thomas Wake, but it can have been no earlier than 1470 so there is no conflict at all with Thomas' brief marriage to Lady Lucy.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by your last para. Are you thinking Roger would therefore have been Margaret Lucy's child and therefore a bastard? Not so. He was the son of a previous marriage of Thomas Wake's, though we don't yet know the mother's name. The child Lady Lucy bore Thomas Wake was named John.

Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.
>
> It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake. 
> Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
> Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind". 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
> >
> > Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
> >
> > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
> >
> >
> > http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > à
> > It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herÃ’â¬aàliaisonÃ’â¬aàwith Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> > >
> > > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> > >
> > > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> > >
> > > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> > >
> > > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> > >
> > > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > Hi,
> > > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > > >
> > > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > > >
> > > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > > >
> > > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃ’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

He doesn't go into the parentage of Thomas Wake Jr, but as to his marriages you have it in a nutshell (Margaret FitJohn aka FitzLewis, daughter of Lewis John).
Marie



--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> OK, I'll look further into it.
>
> Just to be certain of what Hicks maintains:
>
> 1. Thomas Wake sn (d1458) m Agnes Lovel, mother of
>
> Thomas Wake jn (d1476)
>
> who married
>
> (1) Unknown, mother of
>
> 1- Roger Wake (d1503) m Elizabeth Catesby
> 2 - William Wake
>
> (2) Margaret FitzJohn (widow of William Lucy), mother of 
>
> John Wake; this marriage dissolved on grounds of precontract with Thomas Danvers (presumably this made John Wake illegitimate?)
>
> (3) Elizabeth Beauchamp (widow of George Neville of Latimer)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:27
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
>
> Hi,
> I'm not sure what your problem is. There were about three separate references that went with that note of Michael Hicks that I quoted, so it does not look as though he is relying on one source. You really need to check it out for yourself.
>
> 1) Is it possible that Margaret was married to both brothers? No. First, she only lived until 1466. Her marriage was annulled because Thomas Danvers got papal endorsement of his claim that she had already married him clandestinely. She was therefore declared to be legally the wife of Thomas Danvers. She couldn't marry anyone else - think it through. And if she had been free, and wanted to marry Thomas Wake's brother, she would have needed a papal dispensation first, because by having sex with Thomas, even if they weren't legally married, she had brought herself into 1st-degree affinity with his brother John.
>
> 2) I'm not sure why you're (apparently) finding Thomas Wake's marriage to Lady Latimer a hurdle, since until right at the end of 1469 - three years after Margaret FitzLewis' death - Lady L. was the wife of George Neville Lord Latimer. I don't know when she married Thomas Wake, but it can have been no earlier than 1470 so there is no conflict at all with Thomas' brief marriage to Lady Lucy.
>
> 3) I'm not sure what you mean by your last para. Are you thinking Roger would therefore have been Margaret Lucy's child and therefore a bastard? Not so. He was the son of a previous marriage of Thomas Wake's, though we don't yet know the mother's name. The child Lady Lucy bore Thomas Wake was named John.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.
> >
> > It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake. 
> > Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
> > Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind". 
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> > The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
> > >
> > > Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
> > >
> > > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
> > >
> > >
> > > http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herÃÆ'‚ liaisonÃÆ'‚ with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> > > >
> > > > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> > > >
> > > > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> > > >
> > > > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > > > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > > > >
> > > > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > > > >
> > > > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Found this post; not sure if it makes things any clearer.

But if Thomas's first wife was Agnes Lovett, I can understand the confusion with her mother-in-law.

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I34217


But this did tell me about the elder son slain at Edgecote, who I think we can safely assume was another Thomas, and like many sons who died before his father is unrecorded in many pedigrees.

Hint of a possible 3rd husband for Margaret?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 21:05
Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos


 
He doesn't go into the parentage of Thomas Wake Jr, but as to his marriages you have it in a nutshell (Margaret FitJohn aka FitzLewis, daughter of Lewis John).
Marie

--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> OK, I'll look further into it.
>
> Just to be certain of what Hicks maintains:
>
> 1. Thomas Wake sn (d1458) m Agnes Lovel, mother of
>
> Thomas Wake jn (d1476)
>
> who married
>
> (1) Unknown, mother of
>
> 1- Roger Wake (d1503) m Elizabeth Catesby
> 2 - William Wake
>
> (2) Margaret FitzJohn (widow of William Lucy), mother of 
>
> John Wake; this marriage dissolved on grounds of precontract with Thomas Danvers (presumably this made John Wake illegitimate?)
>
> (3) Elizabeth Beauchamp (widow of George Neville of Latimer)
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:27
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
>
> Hi,
> I'm not sure what your problem is. There were about three separate references that went with that note of Michael Hicks that I quoted, so it does not look as though he is relying on one source. You really need to check it out for yourself.
>
> 1) Is it possible that Margaret was married to both brothers? No. First, she only lived until 1466. Her marriage was annulled because Thomas Danvers got papal endorsement of his claim that she had already married him clandestinely. She was therefore declared to be legally the wife of Thomas Danvers. She couldn't marry anyone else - think it through. And if she had been free, and wanted to marry Thomas Wake's brother, she would have needed a papal dispensation first, because by having sex with Thomas, even if they weren't legally married, she had brought herself into 1st-degree affinity with his brother John.
>
> 2) I'm not sure why you're (apparently) finding Thomas Wake's marriage to Lady Latimer a hurdle, since until right at the end of 1469 - three years after Margaret FitzLewis' death - Lady L. was the wife of George Neville Lord Latimer. I don't know when she married Thomas Wake, but it can have been no earlier than 1470 so there is no conflict at all with Thomas' brief marriage to Lady Lucy.
>
> 3) I'm not sure what you mean by your last para. Are you thinking Roger would therefore have been Margaret Lucy's child and therefore a bastard? Not so. He was the son of a previous marriage of Thomas Wake's, though we don't yet know the mother's name. The child Lady Lucy bore Thomas Wake was named John.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.
> >
> > It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake.à
> > Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
> > Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind".à
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> > à
> > The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
> > >
> > > Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
> > >
> > > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
> > >
> > >
> > > http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > > Ã’â¬aà
> > > It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàliaisonÃ’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàwith Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> > > >
> > > > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> > > >
> > > > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> > > >
> > > > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã’Æ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > Hi,
> > > > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > > > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > > > >
> > > > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > > > >
> > > > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã’Æ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃ’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.Ã’Æ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aàÒÆ'à 'Ò⬠'Ã’Æ'âҢââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ò⬦áÒÆ'à 'Ò¢ââ¬a¬Ã&¡ÒÆ'ââ¬Å¡Ã’â¬aà Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

If I were you I'd start looking at original sources and leave the genealogies alone. It's the only way you'll be able to verify the line. As I said before, mostly these published genealogies are all too often largely based on later heraldic visitations, where the herald just came round and asked the family to tell him their ancestry - usually what he got was a load of old muddle.
Marie


--- In , david rayner wrote:
>
> Found this post; not sure if it makes things any clearer.
>
> But if Thomas's first wife was Agnes Lovett, I can understand the confusion with her mother-in-law.
>
> http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jweber&id=I34217
>
>
> But this did tell me about the elder son slain at Edgecote, who I think we can safely assume was another Thomas, and like many sons who died before his father is unrecorded in many pedigrees.
>
> Hint of a possible 3rd husband for Margaret?
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 21:05
> Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
>
>
>  
> He doesn't go into the parentage of Thomas Wake Jr, but as to his marriages you have it in a nutshell (Margaret FitJohn aka FitzLewis, daughter of Lewis John).
> Marie
>
> --- In , david rayner wrote:
> >
> > OK, I'll look further into it.
> >
> > Just to be certain of what Hicks maintains:
> >
> > 1. Thomas Wake sn (d1458) m Agnes Lovel, mother of
> >
> > Thomas Wake jn (d1476)
> >
> > who married
> >
> > (1) Unknown, mother of
> >
> > 1- Roger Wake (d1503) m Elizabeth Catesby
> > 2 - William Wake
> >
> > (2) Margaret FitzJohn (widow of William Lucy), mother of 
> >
> > John Wake; this marriage dissolved on grounds of precontract with Thomas Danvers (presumably this made John Wake illegitimate?)
> >
> > (3) Elizabeth Beauchamp (widow of George Neville of Latimer)
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013, 2:27
> > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hi,
> > I'm not sure what your problem is. There were about three separate references that went with that note of Michael Hicks that I quoted, so it does not look as though he is relying on one source. You really need to check it out for yourself.
> >
> > 1) Is it possible that Margaret was married to both brothers? No. First, she only lived until 1466. Her marriage was annulled because Thomas Danvers got papal endorsement of his claim that she had already married him clandestinely. She was therefore declared to be legally the wife of Thomas Danvers. She couldn't marry anyone else - think it through. And if she had been free, and wanted to marry Thomas Wake's brother, she would have needed a papal dispensation first, because by having sex with Thomas, even if they weren't legally married, she had brought herself into 1st-degree affinity with his brother John.
> >
> > 2) I'm not sure why you're (apparently) finding Thomas Wake's marriage to Lady Latimer a hurdle, since until right at the end of 1469 - three years after Margaret FitzLewis' death - Lady L. was the wife of George Neville Lord Latimer. I don't know when she married Thomas Wake, but it can have been no earlier than 1470 so there is no conflict at all with Thomas' brief marriage to Lady Lucy.
> >
> > 3) I'm not sure what you mean by your last para. Are you thinking Roger would therefore have been Margaret Lucy's child and therefore a bastard? Not so. He was the son of a previous marriage of Thomas Wake's, though we don't yet know the mother's name. The child Lady Lucy bore Thomas Wake was named John.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced. You have to place people in the frame of their families, and contemporary documents are by no means reliable - try listing the dead in any WOTR battle by reports from the battlefield, and you can bet half the names are wrong.
> > >
> > > It's just possible that Margaret was married to both brothers Thomas AND John Wake. 
> > > Thomas married Elizabeth Beauchamp as I mentioned, but his son and heir Roger was by a previous and unknown wife. Is it possible that she married Thomas, was divorced on precontract grounds, and then married his brother John?
> > > Seems most unlikely, as Roger succeeded without difficulty to Blisworth, and fought for the King at Bosworth, though he was one of those who afterwards claimed it had been "against his heart and mind". 
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 13:57
> > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > The problem is that most of these genealogies rely heavily on each other, and on 16th-century heraldic visitations. Hicks found when researching from original contemporary documents that "her husband was Thomas not John, as in 'Biographies', 192" ("Edward V", p. 208, note 37).
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mmm, all the sources I have make it John Wake, 2nd son of Thomas of Blisworth. The elder brother, Thomas, married Elizabeth Beauchamp, widow of Lord Latimer.
> > > >
> > > > Margaret died not long after the birth of her son, and indeed I was wondering if she died from childbirth.
> > > >
> > > > http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=john+wake+margaret+lucy&source=bl&ots=kunCHWLS94&sig=npc49Dv2Eyq1dhWa6y5E6BGOiGE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=n1MSUeyrLczK0AXzwoHADg&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=john%20wake%20margaret%20lucy&f=false
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p4778.htm#i143470
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:36
> > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > It was before her marriage to THOMAS Wake of Blisworth, which took place in about 1464. Her daughter by Edward IV (later Lady Lumley) seems to have been born about 1462. I think she and Thomas Wake had a son John, but the marriage was annulled - another precontract case, in fact; she had clandestinely married someone else the year before. But, as I said to Karen, if you want chapter and verse you need to get hold of a copy of Michael Hicks' "Edward V".
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If she were known as Lady Lucy during herÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ liaisonÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ with Edward, then can we assume that the fling was before her 2nd marriage to John Wake of Great Staughton?
> > > > >
> > > > > William Lucy was killed at Northampton in 1460.
> > > > >
> > > > > Margaret's 2nd marriage is dated 1463, and her son John Wake was born c1466. She died in 1466.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.girders.net/Wa/Wake,%20John,%20(d.ca.1496).doc
> > > > >
> > > > > So when was her royal affair? Wiki gives the birth of her daughter Elizabeth (who m Thomas Lumley) as 1464. The birthdate of her supposed son Arthur Plantagenet is not known.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible that John Wake junior is another "missing" Plantagenet?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 19:09
> > > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > just back again. I know there are more important things to discuss now, but I'm just catching up on posts. In fact, contemporary sources make it quite clear that Thomas' Lumley's wife was named Margaret. She was held to have been the daughter of Edward IV by Lady Lucy, and indeed the marriage dispensation is for consanguinity consistent with having Edward IV as a parent.
> > > > > Thanks to More it has been believed (almost certainly incorrectly) that Lady Lucy's first name was Elizabeth, when she was almost Margaret FitzLewis, the young widow of Sir William Lucy of Dallington. And thanks to Buck it has also been believed that Lady Lucy was also a Wayte by birth and also the mother of Arthur Wayte-Plantagenet. These were, I am quite convinced, two entirely separate mistresses of Edward's, Lady Lucy from the first year of his reign and ?Elizabeth Wayte from at or near the end of the reign.
> > > > > Marie
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , david rayner wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Neither: Thomas, Lord Lumley died in April 1485.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > His grandson, another Thomas Lumley, married Elizabeth, one of Edward IV's daughters by Elizabeth Waite. He was never a Lord though, as he died before his father George.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > George and Thomas junior are however listed as fighting at Bosworth for the King, though neither was killed there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/a/n/Helen-H-Dance/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-1064.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: justcarol67
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, 2 February 2013, 15:52
> > > > > > Subject: Re: OT: Hotel built inside abandoned medieval grottos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ 
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Weds, This is notÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  at all a drafty ruin but it kinda fits the bill as its owner fought for and knew Eddie.ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚ ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'†'ÃÆ'Æ'¢ÃÆ'¢â€šÂ¬ÃÆ'…¡ÃÆ'Æ'Æ'ÃÆ'¢â‚¬Å¡ÃÆ'Æ'‚ÃÆ'‚  Doing a wedding there later in the year.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.lumleycastle.com/history-of-lumley-castle/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I notice that the entry for 1485 has Sir Thomas Lumley accompanying Edward IV into battle against the forces of Margaret of Anjou. Somewhat misleading, I would say. It also appears that Sir Thomas died in 1485, which suggests that he died at Bosworth. would that be for Richard or against him, does anyone know?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>