"Perkin Warbeck"
"Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 17:29:36
Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
Does anyone know where he was buried ?
Richard G
Does anyone know where he was buried ?
Richard G
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 17:37:54
He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the Blitz...Eileen
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
>
> Does anyone know where he was buried ?
>
> Richard G
>
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
>
> Does anyone know where he was buried ?
>
> Richard G
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 17:44:42
Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> Blitz...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> >
> > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
>
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> Blitz...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> >
> > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 17:57:36
Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > Blitz...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > Blitz...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 18:14:49
And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > Blitz...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > Blitz...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 18:22:59
Is there a car park nearby?
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 18:39:13
Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
"After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
"That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
Ah well....
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
"After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
"That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
Ah well....
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 18:56:54
Austin Friars....Crikes...good thing I was not giving directions to anyone who was going on a dig to search for Perkin...!
But anyway, alas, it would have cleared at least one of the mysteries surrounding Richard...
I do wonder about that rumour though....? Eileen
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
>
> "After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
> Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
> Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
>
> "That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
> only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
> to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
> identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
> that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
> Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
> the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
> and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
> I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
> official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
> had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
>
> Ah well....
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
But anyway, alas, it would have cleared at least one of the mysteries surrounding Richard...
I do wonder about that rumour though....? Eileen
--- In , "Richard" wrote:
>
> Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
>
> "After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
> Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
> Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
>
> "That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
> only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
> to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
> identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
> that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
> Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
> the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
> and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
> I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
> official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
> had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
>
> Ah well....
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> >
> > And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 19:07:22
This seems to be the place -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Church,_Austin_Friars
The implication seems to be that the monastic church survived the dissolution and was taken over by the Dutch in the time of Edward VI, before being destroyed in 1940 and replaced with a new building in 1954.
Not as easy to excavate as a car park ! Nevertheless I wonder if there are any records of the remains that were found and re-buried after the war ? Modern forensic science can work wonders, as we have reason to know !
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Austin Friars....Crikes...good thing I was not giving directions to anyone who was going on a dig to search for Perkin...!
>
> But anyway, alas, it would have cleared at least one of the mysteries surrounding Richard...
>
> I do wonder about that rumour though....? Eileen
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
> >
> > "After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
> > Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
> > Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
> >
> > "That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
> > only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
> > to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
> > identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
> > that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
> > Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
> > the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
> > and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
> > I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
> > official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
> > had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
> >
> > Ah well....
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Church,_Austin_Friars
The implication seems to be that the monastic church survived the dissolution and was taken over by the Dutch in the time of Edward VI, before being destroyed in 1940 and replaced with a new building in 1954.
Not as easy to excavate as a car park ! Nevertheless I wonder if there are any records of the remains that were found and re-buried after the war ? Modern forensic science can work wonders, as we have reason to know !
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Austin Friars....Crikes...good thing I was not giving directions to anyone who was going on a dig to search for Perkin...!
>
> But anyway, alas, it would have cleared at least one of the mysteries surrounding Richard...
>
> I do wonder about that rumour though....? Eileen
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
> >
> > "After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
> > Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
> > Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
> >
> > "That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
> > only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
> > to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
> > identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
> > that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
> > Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
> > the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
> > and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
> > I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
> > official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
> > had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
> >
> > Ah well....
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Richard G
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 19:26:53
It was the church of the Austin (ie Augustinian) friars.
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > Blitz...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Marie
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
>
> --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > Blitz...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > >
> > > > Richard G
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 19:31:11
IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome (presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew). It WOULD also prove that he couldn't simultaneously be in the urn and the remains surely couldn't be "Edward of Westminster plus a random child" so the regii falsii (to quote the Colchester records) WOULD be buried in Burgundy or somewhere, having died of natural causes soon after they were sent to safety. Then there are families in South Wales called Perkins ......
Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
"After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
"That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
Ah well....
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
Just found this, on this very forum, from 2004 (message 4590) -
"After his execution, Perkin Warbeck was said to have been buried at
Austin Friars in London. I've exchanged emails with the Dutch
Church on the site of the former Austin Friars. According to them, none of the old graves remain due to the church taking an almost direct hit during the Blitz in 1940. What remains were found during cleanup were reburied but my understanding is that none of the old graves remain."
"That's right. This was discussed on the forum some while back. Not
only is the church destroyed, but it seems there never was a memorial
to Perkin in the first place so the body could not have been
identified even without the Blitz. Wroe mentions a Scottish tradition
that Katherine's father had his remains transferred to Cambuskenneth
Abbey - but again, no memorial there. Stow gives an extensive list of
the people buried in the church (really anybody at all noteworthy,
and the list is very long) and it does not include Warbeck. From what
I recall reading, no such memorial was noted at any time. Given his
official status at the time of his death, I imagine he may have just
had an anonymous burial in the churchyard."
Ah well....
Richard G
--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
>
> And I am assume that Warbeck was buried within the church.....It would be a very long shot that Warbeck's body could be discovered...Oooooooops! who said that just a few months ago about Richard..:0)
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 20:00:03
Or an illegitimate son of Edward IV.
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome
>(presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard
> of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew).
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome
>(presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard
> of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew).
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 20:39:38
Ummmm Was then the church of St Augustines the same as the Austin Friars Church...?
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> It was the church of the Austin (ie Augustinian) friars.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> It was the church of the Austin (ie Augustinian) friars.
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ah!...I was afraid you were going to ask me that..I have had a quick look in my copy of "Perkin" but cannot find any info at this moment...My memory..hazy at the best of times..tells me it was St Augustines...I have checked in my London Encyclopaedia...and St Augustines with St Faith, Watling Street was burned down in the Gt Fire, rebuilt by Wren and bombed in 1940. Only the tower and spire remain.(I believe there is a little garden too where office workers rest their weary bones in the lunch times)..You can see. ...that a church that has been destroyed by both fire and bomb leaves little chance of anything remaining in the churchyard...BUT never say never...Eileen.
> >
> > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks, Eileen. Do you know which church ? From your comment I assume it was destroyed in the Blitz, but was it so badly ruined that graves would have been destroyed as well, or could they still be in situ on the site ? Or were any human remains on the site re-interred elsewhere ?
> > >
> > > Richard G
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > He was buried in London but the church is no more thanks to the
> > > > Blitz...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Richard" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Seeing the repeat of the "Princes in the Tower" drama with Mark Umbers and John Castle a few days ago (which sadly only seems to be available on Region 1 DVD) made me wonder if the grave of "Warbeck" is known ? If so, given the information on Richard's DNA that is now held, the question of whether "Warbeck" was really Richard of Shrewsbury (or, possibly, an illegitimate son of Edward IV) could perhaps be resolved once and for all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know where he was buried ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Richard G
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-07 20:49:48
Is there any other kind?
Presumably, Woodville mtDNA could be used as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
Or an illegitimate son of Edward IV.
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome
>(presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard
> of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew).
Presumably, Woodville mtDNA could be used as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
Or an illegitimate son of Edward IV.
Richard G
--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome
>(presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard
> of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew).
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-08 01:32:31
Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome (presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew). It WOULD also prove that he couldn't simultaneously be in the urn and the remains surely couldn't be "Edward of Westminster plus a random child" so the regii falsii (to quote the Colchester records) WOULD be buried in Burgundy or somewhere, having died of natural causes soon after they were sent to safety. Then there are families in South Wales called Perkins ......
>
> Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
Carol responds:
Wait. The Colcester Records refer to Edward V as regii falsii? It sounds like some version of "the false king," but the case endings don't fit. Can you please check the wording and elaborate? Also, which Colcester Records are you referring to?
Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret. Not that I take the charge seriously. Richard certainly treated the Earl of Warwick as his nephew (and so, unfortunately, did Henry). I'm just saying that there are other possibilities for the Y chromosome being a match for Richard's. (Another accusation was that the boy was Margaret's own illegitimate child by a bishop though how she would have concealed her pregnancy is not explained, and, of course, such a child if real would not share Richard's Y chromosome.)
I do share your view that Perkin Warbeck was probably Richard of Shrewsbury and almost certainly a Plantagenet nephew of Margaret's given her references to him as such and his appearance, but that nephew need not have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Another possibility that I forgot to mention is yet another of Edward's illegitimate sons, but that seems less likely.
Of course, I'd rather that it be Richard, but scientists would still have to examine the bones in the urn to confirm his identity. )and, of course, Edward himself would have to be legitimate for the Y chromosomes to match.)
Carol
>
> IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome (presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew). It WOULD also prove that he couldn't simultaneously be in the urn and the remains surely couldn't be "Edward of Westminster plus a random child" so the regii falsii (to quote the Colchester records) WOULD be buried in Burgundy or somewhere, having died of natural causes soon after they were sent to safety. Then there are families in South Wales called Perkins ......
>
> Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
Carol responds:
Wait. The Colcester Records refer to Edward V as regii falsii? It sounds like some version of "the false king," but the case endings don't fit. Can you please check the wording and elaborate? Also, which Colcester Records are you referring to?
Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret. Not that I take the charge seriously. Richard certainly treated the Earl of Warwick as his nephew (and so, unfortunately, did Henry). I'm just saying that there are other possibilities for the Y chromosome being a match for Richard's. (Another accusation was that the boy was Margaret's own illegitimate child by a bishop though how she would have concealed her pregnancy is not explained, and, of course, such a child if real would not share Richard's Y chromosome.)
I do share your view that Perkin Warbeck was probably Richard of Shrewsbury and almost certainly a Plantagenet nephew of Margaret's given her references to him as such and his appearance, but that nephew need not have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Another possibility that I forgot to mention is yet another of Edward's illegitimate sons, but that seems less likely.
Of course, I'd rather that it be Richard, but scientists would still have to examine the bones in the urn to confirm his identity. )and, of course, Edward himself would have to be legitimate for the Y chromosomes to match.)
Carol
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-08 15:07:12
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome (presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew). It WOULD also prove that he couldn't simultaneously be in the urn and the remains surely couldn't be "Edward of Westminster plus a random child" so the regii falsii (to quote the Colchester records) WOULD be buried in Burgundy or somewhere, having died of natural causes soon after they were sent to safety. Then there are families in South Wales called Perkins ......
> >
> > Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. The Colcester Records refer to Edward V as regii falsii? It sounds like some version of "the false king," but the case endings don't fit. Can you please check the wording and elaborate? Also, which Colcester Records are you referring to?
>
> Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
"And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
Marie
Not that I take the charge seriously. Richard certainly treated the Earl of Warwick as his nephew (and so, unfortunately, did Henry). I'm just saying that there are other possibilities for the Y chromosome being a match for Richard's. (Another accusation was that the boy was Margaret's own illegitimate child by a bishop though how she would have concealed her pregnancy is not explained, and, of course, such a child if real would not share Richard's Y chromosome.)
>
> I do share your view that Perkin Warbeck was probably Richard of Shrewsbury and almost certainly a Plantagenet nephew of Margaret's given her references to him as such and his appearance, but that nephew need not have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Another possibility that I forgot to mention is yet another of Edward's illegitimate sons, but that seems less likely.
>
> Of course, I'd rather that it be Richard, but scientists would still have to examine the bones in the urn to confirm his identity. )and, of course, Edward himself would have to be legitimate for the Y chromosomes to match.)
>
> Carol
>
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > IF a body were found and shared our Richard's Y-chromosome (presumably sampled in Leicester) then he could surely ONLY be Richard of Shrewsbury (fraternal nephew). It WOULD also prove that he couldn't simultaneously be in the urn and the remains surely couldn't be "Edward of Westminster plus a random child" so the regii falsii (to quote the Colchester records) WOULD be buried in Burgundy or somewhere, having died of natural causes soon after they were sent to safety. Then there are families in South Wales called Perkins ......
> >
> > Right now, the Y-chromosome may not be that useful but it will become so in the future.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Wait. The Colcester Records refer to Edward V as regii falsii? It sounds like some version of "the false king," but the case endings don't fit. Can you please check the wording and elaborate? Also, which Colcester Records are you referring to?
>
> Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
"And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
Marie
Not that I take the charge seriously. Richard certainly treated the Earl of Warwick as his nephew (and so, unfortunately, did Henry). I'm just saying that there are other possibilities for the Y chromosome being a match for Richard's. (Another accusation was that the boy was Margaret's own illegitimate child by a bishop though how she would have concealed her pregnancy is not explained, and, of course, such a child if real would not share Richard's Y chromosome.)
>
> I do share your view that Perkin Warbeck was probably Richard of Shrewsbury and almost certainly a Plantagenet nephew of Margaret's given her references to him as such and his appearance, but that nephew need not have been Richard of Shrewsbury. Another possibility that I forgot to mention is yet another of Edward's illegitimate sons, but that seems less likely.
>
> Of course, I'd rather that it be Richard, but scientists would still have to examine the bones in the urn to confirm his identity. )and, of course, Edward himself would have to be legitimate for the Y chromosomes to match.)
>
> Carol
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-08 19:47:03
Carol earler:
[snip]
> > Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
>
Marie responded:
> Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
> "And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
Carol responds:
Thank you for quoting that passage, which I apparently misremembered and did not have access to. My point, though, is that it refers to a child who resembles Edward Earl of Warwick whom George, according to the charges, contemplated substituting for his legitimate son. (Why he would do that and why it would be treasonous, I leave to you to explain.) If such a child existed, who could he have been? A Lambert Simnel taken from the streets of London based on a resemblance to a real Plantagenet? An unknown illegitimate son of George of Clarence" There's a reference--I'm sure you can locate it more easily than I can--to a son of Clarence's living in Margaret of Burgundy's household. So if such a child existed, if he were really George's illegitimate son, and if he somehow ended up in Margaret's court in Burgundy, that would explain why Margaret persistently referred to Perkin Warbeck as her nephew and why she was willing to sponsor him as a claimant to the throne. It would also, inconveniently, mean that Perkin Warbeck would share Richard's Y chromosome without being who he claimed to be, Richard Duke of York, which was my reason for posting in the first place.
I hope that my point is clearer now. I'm not arguing that Perkin Warbeck was George's illegitimate son or even that he had such a son (though some child resembling Edward of Warwick must have existed if the charges were true, and Edward must have had some basis for them; I can't imagine him inventing them). I'm only exploring possibilities. Personally, I do think that Perkin was who he said he was, but other explanations are possible and worth exploring. I'm also interested in your take on the passage you quoted. What do you think was going on?
As always, I'm grateful to you for providing the documentation. Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
Carol
[snip]
> > Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
>
Marie responded:
> Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
> "And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
Carol responds:
Thank you for quoting that passage, which I apparently misremembered and did not have access to. My point, though, is that it refers to a child who resembles Edward Earl of Warwick whom George, according to the charges, contemplated substituting for his legitimate son. (Why he would do that and why it would be treasonous, I leave to you to explain.) If such a child existed, who could he have been? A Lambert Simnel taken from the streets of London based on a resemblance to a real Plantagenet? An unknown illegitimate son of George of Clarence" There's a reference--I'm sure you can locate it more easily than I can--to a son of Clarence's living in Margaret of Burgundy's household. So if such a child existed, if he were really George's illegitimate son, and if he somehow ended up in Margaret's court in Burgundy, that would explain why Margaret persistently referred to Perkin Warbeck as her nephew and why she was willing to sponsor him as a claimant to the throne. It would also, inconveniently, mean that Perkin Warbeck would share Richard's Y chromosome without being who he claimed to be, Richard Duke of York, which was my reason for posting in the first place.
I hope that my point is clearer now. I'm not arguing that Perkin Warbeck was George's illegitimate son or even that he had such a son (though some child resembling Edward of Warwick must have existed if the charges were true, and Edward must have had some basis for them; I can't imagine him inventing them). I'm only exploring possibilities. Personally, I do think that Perkin was who he said he was, but other explanations are possible and worth exploring. I'm also interested in your take on the passage you quoted. What do you think was going on?
As always, I'm grateful to you for providing the documentation. Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
Carol
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-09 01:34:57
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earler:
>
> [snip]
> > > Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
> >
> Marie responded:
> > Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
> > "And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you for quoting that passage, which I apparently misremembered and did not have access to. My point, though, is that it refers to a child who resembles Edward Earl of Warwick whom George, according to the charges, contemplated substituting for his legitimate son. (Why he would do that and why it would be treasonous, I leave to you to explain.) If such a child existed, who could he have been?
Okay. This comes right near the end of the Act of Attainder, and the words "now late" suggest to me that it was a more recent crime than the others listed. In other words, I think Clarence tried to get his son smuggled out of Warwick whilst he himself was in the Tower. The Act is very clear about the purpose, ie: "wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde". In other words, little Warwick was to be used as a figurehead for a rebellion against King Edward.
At this time Warwick was not yet three years old, and his appearance would not have been known at court. It is debatable whether King Edward had ever seen him. The word "strange" suggests Clarence was not aiming to substitute a bastard of his own - he probably wouldn't want Edward having control of any child of his. Why involve the Abbot of Tewkesbury, though? Perhaps the abbey had some orphans, I just don't know.
It does leave a slight possibility that the real Warwick left England late in 1477, and so was already in place for the "Lambert Simnel" rebellion, but I think it is only a slight chance. No action was taken against Tapton and Harewell so I think they really must have informed.
Marie
A Lambert Simnel taken from the streets of London based on a resemblance to a real Plantagenet? An unknown illegitimate son of George of Clarence" There's a reference--I'm sure you can locate it more easily than I can--to a son of Clarence's living in Margaret of Burgundy's household.
Yes, this was in the summer of 1486.
So if such a child existed, if he were really George's illegitimate son, and if he somehow ended up in Margaret's court in Burgundy, that would explain why Margaret persistently referred to Perkin Warbeck as her nephew and why she was willing to sponsor him as a claimant to the throne. It would also, inconveniently, mean that Perkin Warbeck would share Richard's Y chromosome without being who he claimed to be, Richard Duke of York, which was my reason for posting in the first place.
>
> I hope that my point is clearer now. I'm not arguing that Perkin Warbeck was George's illegitimate son or even that he had such a son (though some child resembling Edward of Warwick must have existed if the charges were true, and Edward must have had some basis for them; I can't imagine him inventing them). I'm only exploring possibilities. Personally, I do think that Perkin was who he said he was, but other explanations are possible and worth exploring. I'm also interested in your take on the passage you quoted. What do you think was going on?
>
> As always, I'm grateful to you for providing the documentation. Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
Marie
>
> Carol earler:
>
> [snip]
> > > Regarding your statement that the Y-chromosome could only belong to Richard of Shrewsbury (Edward IV's younger son) is not quite true, though that would certainly be the most likely scenario. But he could also be an illegitimate son of George of Clarence, a possibility suggested by an obscure reference to a son of Clarence living in the duchess's household and by a seldom-explored accusation in George's attainder which suggests that he smuggled his own son our of the country and substituted another child, which, if true, would mean that whoever the poor child was that Henry VII imprisoned in the Tower, it wasn't Edward Earl of Warwick, who was in Burgundy with Margaret.
> >
> Marie responded:
> > Let's be careful about the facts here. Clarence's Act of Attainder claims that he attempted to smuggle his son out of the country, but FAILED:-
> > "And also the same duke ... now of late willed and desired the Abbot of Twexbury [sic], Maystr John Tapton clerk and Roger Harewell esquyer to cause a straunge childe to have be brought into his castell of Warwyk and there to have be putte and kept in liklieniesse of his sonne and heire, and that they shulde have conveyed and sent his said sonne and heire into Irelande or into Flaundres oute of this lande, wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde, and for the execucion of the same sent oon John Taylour his servaunte to have had delyveraunce of his said sonne and heire for to have conveyed hym. The whyche Mayster John Tapton and Roger Harewell denyed the delyveraunce of the said childe, and soo by Goddes grace his saide false and untrue entent was lette [ie hindered] and undoo."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you for quoting that passage, which I apparently misremembered and did not have access to. My point, though, is that it refers to a child who resembles Edward Earl of Warwick whom George, according to the charges, contemplated substituting for his legitimate son. (Why he would do that and why it would be treasonous, I leave to you to explain.) If such a child existed, who could he have been?
Okay. This comes right near the end of the Act of Attainder, and the words "now late" suggest to me that it was a more recent crime than the others listed. In other words, I think Clarence tried to get his son smuggled out of Warwick whilst he himself was in the Tower. The Act is very clear about the purpose, ie: "wherby he myght have goten hym assistaunce and favoure agaynst oure said sovereigne lorde". In other words, little Warwick was to be used as a figurehead for a rebellion against King Edward.
At this time Warwick was not yet three years old, and his appearance would not have been known at court. It is debatable whether King Edward had ever seen him. The word "strange" suggests Clarence was not aiming to substitute a bastard of his own - he probably wouldn't want Edward having control of any child of his. Why involve the Abbot of Tewkesbury, though? Perhaps the abbey had some orphans, I just don't know.
It does leave a slight possibility that the real Warwick left England late in 1477, and so was already in place for the "Lambert Simnel" rebellion, but I think it is only a slight chance. No action was taken against Tapton and Harewell so I think they really must have informed.
Marie
A Lambert Simnel taken from the streets of London based on a resemblance to a real Plantagenet? An unknown illegitimate son of George of Clarence" There's a reference--I'm sure you can locate it more easily than I can--to a son of Clarence's living in Margaret of Burgundy's household.
Yes, this was in the summer of 1486.
So if such a child existed, if he were really George's illegitimate son, and if he somehow ended up in Margaret's court in Burgundy, that would explain why Margaret persistently referred to Perkin Warbeck as her nephew and why she was willing to sponsor him as a claimant to the throne. It would also, inconveniently, mean that Perkin Warbeck would share Richard's Y chromosome without being who he claimed to be, Richard Duke of York, which was my reason for posting in the first place.
>
> I hope that my point is clearer now. I'm not arguing that Perkin Warbeck was George's illegitimate son or even that he had such a son (though some child resembling Edward of Warwick must have existed if the charges were true, and Edward must have had some basis for them; I can't imagine him inventing them). I'm only exploring possibilities. Personally, I do think that Perkin was who he said he was, but other explanations are possible and worth exploring. I'm also interested in your take on the passage you quoted. What do you think was going on?
>
> As always, I'm grateful to you for providing the documentation. Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
Marie
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-09 04:37:45
Carol earlier:
> Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
Marie responded:
> No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
> I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
Carol again:
You're right. It's in "The Secret Queen," which I have on Kindle. Please do write that book or article on the pretenders--for publication, I hope.
Can I get you to put my parts of the conversation in quotation marks in future? That will make it easier for other people to follow.
Carol
> Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
Marie responded:
> No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
> I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
Carol again:
You're right. It's in "The Secret Queen," which I have on Kindle. Please do write that book or article on the pretenders--for publication, I hope.
Can I get you to put my parts of the conversation in quotation marks in future? That will make it easier for other people to follow.
Carol
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-09 17:42:59
Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
>
> Marie responded:
> > No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
> > I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
>
> Carol again:
>
> You're right. It's in "The Secret Queen," which I have on Kindle. Please do write that book or article on the pretenders--for publication, I hope.
>
> Can I get you to put my parts of the conversation in quotation marks in future? That will make it easier for other people to follow.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > Can you tell me where to find the attainder for future reference? Is it in Kendall?
>
> Marie responded:
> > No. I looked at the original a few years ago - it is in the National Archives - photographed it and transcribed it. Since then John Ashdown-Hill has reproduced the text in The Secret Queen, if my memory serves me rightly.
> > I think I have put together a broad picture of what was going on with feigned boys up to 1487 at any rate, and I shall be writing about it.
>
> Carol again:
>
> You're right. It's in "The Secret Queen," which I have on Kindle. Please do write that book or article on the pretenders--for publication, I hope.
>
> Can I get you to put my parts of the conversation in quotation marks in future? That will make it easier for other people to follow.
>
> Carol
>
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-11 04:21:15
On 2/9/2013 10:42 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
>
>
I'd like to add a few questions
How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
they take place at the same time?
> Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
>
>
I'd like to add a few questions
How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
they take place at the same time?
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-11 09:38:59
I wish I had time to answer this ..............
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Simons
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
On 2/9/2013 10:42 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
>
>
I'd like to add a few questions
How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
they take place at the same time?
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Simons
To:
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 4:31 AM
Subject: Re: Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
On 2/9/2013 10:42 AM, EileenB wrote:
> Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
>
>
I'd like to add a few questions
How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
they take place at the same time?
Re: "Perkin Warbeck"
2013-02-11 16:56:24
We only have Buck's word for it that John of Gloucester was executed - he simply disappears from the record. Warwick and Warbeck were executed on successive days, Warwick by beheading and Warbeck by hanging.
Marie
--- In , Ed Simons wrote:
>
> On 2/9/2013 10:42 AM, EileenB wrote:
> > Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
> >
> >
> I'd like to add a few questions
>
> How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
> from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
> they take place at the same time?
>
Marie
--- In , Ed Simons wrote:
>
> On 2/9/2013 10:42 AM, EileenB wrote:
> > Why did they bash in Perkin's face prior to his execution? Was it because he was, as his portrait shows, the spitting image of Edward? I'm inclined to think that if he was not the actual prince then the theory about him be an illigitimate son of Edward is true. That they would have just chanced upon a young man who looked so much like Edward it too much of a coincidence...Eileen
> >
> >
> I'd like to add a few questions
>
> How was Perkin Warbeck executed? Where? Was it the same or different
> from the executions of Edward of Warwick and John of Gloucester? Did
> they take place at the same time?
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.