Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Gipping Hall

I think you will find that Gipping Hall is near the River Gipping in Suffolk, not Surrey. We in the Mid-Anglia Group went there last spring.
Incidentally, Sir James Tyrrell is supposed to be descended from Walter, who killed William Rufus in a hunting "accident" in 1100. Tyrrell and sons, Regicides. ???!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: meenivettle
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: Lincoln's Rebellion and Stoke



> Apologies if another version if this shows up later but my original
> reply seems to have been lost in the ether! They are a new A level
> group, and it would be an interesting exercise I would go with if I
> had sufficient resources, but unless anyone can offer/suggest any I
> don't have enough for a useful lesson.
>
> I recall rumours/references to the boys (one or both) not being
dead
> at all - possibly in Suffolk or Burgundy. If anyone has any
> suggestions for sources for this it would make an interesting angle
> to throw into the pot. Last year's 13 students found Richard
> unanimously not guilty! (Not that they had any biased teacher input
> you understand..... ;-) )
> Brunhild

Another note (sorry to be spammy, but just recalled this): At some
point in Williamson's book, the author recounts an oral tradition
passed down in the Tyrell family that 'the Princes and their mother
Elizabeth Woodville lived at the Hall by the permission of the
Uncle'. The hall would be Gipping Hall in Surrey and the wording of
the tradition is apparently specific and longstanding - going back at
least to the 1790s.


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> I think you will find that Gipping Hall is near the River Gipping
in Suffolk, not Surrey. We in the Mid-Anglia Group went there last
spring.
> Incidentally, Sir James Tyrrell is supposed to be descended from
Walter, who killed William Rufus in a hunting "accident" in 1100.
Tyrrell and sons, Regicides. ???!!!
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: meenivettle
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Lincoln's Rebellion and
Stoke
>
>
>
I used to know Tyrrell who said that the racing car group is the
same descent too. Did I say Surrey? I thought I said Suffolk. I
MEANT Suffolk!!!!!
Brunhild

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> I think you will find that Gipping Hall is near the River Gipping
in Suffolk, not Surrey. We in the Mid-Anglia Group went there last
spring.
> Incidentally, Sir James Tyrrell is supposed to be descended from
Walter, who killed William Rufus in a hunting "accident" in 1100.
Tyrrell and sons, Regicides. ???!!!


Yes, I've long held the theory that More used Tyrrell's name because
of the 'regicide recognition factor'. And what a funny thing that one
of the other culprits was called Forest!

(I started thinking about it when I tracked down the ancestral New
Forest home and found a Tyrrell's Lane a few yards away.)

Marie

>I think you will find that Gipping Hall is near the River Gipping in
>Suffolk, not Surrey. We in the Mid-Anglia Group went there last
>spring.
>Incidentally, Sir James Tyrrell is supposed to be descended from
>Walter, who killed William Rufus in a hunting "accident" in 1100.
>Tyrrell and sons, Regicides. ???!!!

First of all the spelling is different, and secondly the story of a
Tirel killing Rufus did not appear until long after the event. It was
probably an accident, but if it was a killing it was ordered by
little brother Henry who became Henry 1. But an accident seems most
likely.
Check it out in the Frank Barlow biography.
AFAIK there is no family connection whatever.
And anyway James Tyrell was no regicide!!!
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
>
> First of all the spelling is different, and secondly the story of
a
> Tirel killing Rufus did not appear until long after the event. It
was
> probably an accident, but if it was a killing it was ordered by
> little brother Henry who became Henry 1. But an accident seems
most
> likely.
> Check it out in the Frank Barlow biography.
> AFAIK there is no family connection whatever.
> And anyway James Tyrell was no regicide!!!
> Paul

Paul, on his deathbed Sir Walter maintained complete inncocence,
even of causing the king's death by accident. That he fled after the
killing tends to suggest he expected to be blamed as he was with the
king when it happened - or so our cources tell us. Interestingly,
Robert's illegitimate son was killed in an identical manner in the
same forest some years previous and no-one queried it. The king's
brother was also killed in the New Forest after riding into a low
branch. The behaviour of Henry immediately after suggests he was up
to his eyes in what happened. It is certainly quite a coincidence
that both alleged regicides have the name Tyrell/Tirel, and may well
indicate a deliberate choice of "fall guy" by Henry Tudor - not for
the first time!
The other interesting coincidence here is that the sources describe
William's last night as being one of nightmares and sleeplessness,
much like Richard's alleged last night. Of course the message in
both is the same - and apocryphal: evil king meets sticky end, God's
judgement on him obvious.
Brunhild

My remark about the Tyrrells was ironic (hence the punctuation). If I had meant it seriously, names do change spelling over 400 years and were sometimes irregularly spelt in those days e.g "Shakespeare".
----- Original Message -----
From: P.T.Bale
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Gipping Hall


>I think you will find that Gipping Hall is near the River Gipping in
>Suffolk, not Surrey. We in the Mid-Anglia Group went there last
>spring.
>Incidentally, Sir James Tyrrell is supposed to be descended from
>Walter, who killed William Rufus in a hunting "accident" in 1100.
>Tyrrell and sons, Regicides. ???!!!

First of all the spelling is different, and secondly the story of a
Tirel killing Rufus did not appear until long after the event. It was
probably an accident, but if it was a killing it was ordered by
little brother Henry who became Henry 1. But an accident seems most
likely.
Check it out in the Frank Barlow biography.
AFAIK there is no family connection whatever.
And anyway James Tyrell was no regicide!!!
Paul

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "Stephen LARK"
<smlark@i...> wrote:
> My remark about the Tyrrells was ironic (hence the punctuation). If
>I had meant it seriously, names do change spelling over 400 years
>and were sometimes irregularly spelt in those days e.g "Shakespeare".

Quite. In fact there was NO standardised spelling in those days - it
was merely phonetic. So y and i were interchangeable, and letters
could appear as single or double, on the writer's whim.
I don't think Paul quite took your point, that the coincidence of
surname is fishy. I'm wholeheartedly with you on this. As some may
have gathered, i'm strongly of the opinion that the tudors worked by
attaching to Richard stories already current, where possible (as
Hughes has argued, people viewed history as necessarily cyclical).
Tyrell, Forest, Green (modernisation of spellings deliberate). . . .
I ask you, what stronger reference to the regicide of William Rufus
do you want!

Marie

I'm wholeheartedly with you on this. As some may
> have gathered, i'm strongly of the opinion that the tudors worked
by
> attaching to Richard stories already current, where possible (as
> Hughes has argued, people viewed history as necessarily cyclical).
> Tyrell, Forest, Green (modernisation of spellings
deliberate). . . .
> I ask you, what stronger reference to the regicide of William
Rufus
> do you want!
>
> Marie

I gather something else they attached to him were Tacitus's
criticisms of Tiberius which had been unearthed recently. More, if I
remember correctly - if not I am sure someone will put me right -
uses some of the ideologies from it.
Brunhild

he whole thing says that there must have been a medieval legend trough that
all writers dipped into. ³Wicked man always dreams night before death² etc.
What happened to Rufus is only described by one contemporary source, The
Anglo Saxon Chronicle which said ³In the morning after Lammas King William
when hunting was shot by an arrow by one of his own men.²
The rest of the story was supplied by writers writing between 15 and 30
years later, all of whom were churchmen.
Barlow says of your suggested denial ³a reported denial from a good, but
sometimes hazy or inaccurate source is not conclusive.²
ŒWhen such an evident sinner perished, here was no need to look beyond the
avenging hand of God¹. An oft repeated and copied medieval answer to
unexpected death. Walter Tirel was never accused of or rewarded for any part
in the death of William, and maybe a learned man like Morton may have known
the story and seen the resemblance in the spelling of the names Tirel and
Tyrell and used it when Henry VII arrested Sir James, in spite of a promsie
not to do so let¹s not forget, to suggest they put out the story of Tyrell¹s
involvement in the other ³tale² of murder and mayhem. I wouldn¹t put
anything past Morton!
Paul

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 15:35:37 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Gipping Hall
>
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
>>
>> First of all the spelling is different, and secondly the story of
> a
>> Tirel killing Rufus did not appear until long after the event. It
> was
>> probably an accident, but if it was a killing it was ordered by
>> little brother Henry who became Henry 1. But an accident seems
> most
>> likely.
>> Check it out in the Frank Barlow biography.
>> AFAIK there is no family connection whatever.
>> And anyway James Tyrell was no regicide!!!
>> Paul
>
> Paul, on his deathbed Sir Walter maintained complete inncocence,
> even of causing the king's death by accident. That he fled after the
> killing tends to suggest he expected to be blamed as he was with the
> king when it happened - or so our cources tell us. Interestingly,
> Robert's illegitimate son was killed in an identical manner in the
> same forest some years previous and no-one queried it. The king's
> brother was also killed in the New Forest after riding into a low
> branch. The behaviour of Henry immediately after suggests he was up
> to his eyes in what happened. It is certainly quite a coincidence
> that both alleged regicides have the name Tyrell/Tirel, and may well
> indicate a deliberate choice of "fall guy" by Henry Tudor - not for
> the first time!
> The other interesting coincidence here is that the sources describe
> William's last night as being one of nightmares and sleeplessness,
> much like Richard's alleged last night. Of course the message in
> both is the same - and apocryphal: evil king meets sticky end, God's
> judgement on him obvious.
> Brunhild
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> he whole thing says that there must have been a medieval legend
trough that
> all writers dipped into. ³Wicked man always dreams night before
death² etc.
> What happened to Rufus is only described by one contemporary
source, The
> Anglo Saxon Chronicle which said ³In the morning after Lammas King
William
> when hunting was shot by an arrow by one of his own men.²
> The rest of the story was supplied by writers writing between 15
and 30
> years later, all of whom were churchmen.
> Barlow says of your suggested denial ³a reported denial from a
good, but
> sometimes hazy or inaccurate source is not conclusive.²
> ŒWhen such an evident sinner perished, here was no need to look
beyond the
> avenging hand of God¹. An oft repeated and copied medieval answer
to
> unexpected death. Walter Tirel was never accused of or rewarded
for any part
> in the death of William, and maybe a learned man like Morton may
have known
> the story and seen the resemblance in the spelling of the names
Tirel and
> Tyrell and used it when Henry VII arrested Sir James, in spite of
a promsie
> not to do so let¹s not forget, to suggest they put out the story
of Tyrell¹s
> involvement in the other ³tale² of murder and mayhem. I wouldn¹t
put
> anything past Morton!
> Paul
>
Apocryphal ends are popular with medieval authors. Hence my namesake
meets the allegedly same fate as Jezebel in 613AD, not because that
is literally how she died (though it may have been, there is no hard
evidence either way) but because it suited the author's purposes to
have his readers equate the old queen with the biblical one. Rufus's
death and Richard's are of the same type. I am not aware of any such
legend being attached to King John, which would be surprising, since
many authors of the period had little good to say of him, and his
reputation is almost as black as Richard's has been portrayed.
Almost as undeservedly, though he was no saint. Perhaps someone here
does know of such a story.
I think Morton was very shady indeed, as was Margaret Beaufort in my
opinion. I remember watching "The trial of Richard III" many years
ago and being astonished at the way an historian of Starkey's
calibre could accept what More and Morton told us. (I have since
severly adjusted my view of Starkey's calibre!) Any material
originating with Morton must be handled with extreme caution. I also
suspect that people are a little too trusting of Crowland who, if it
was Russell, has his own axes to grind too.
Brunhild

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
I wouldn¹t put
anything past Morton!
Paul


Me neither. He was the spider in the center of the web for several
decades, methinks, and a bigger kingmaker than Warwick ever was. And
I notice that the deeper we delve into this Lambert Simnel business,
the more often Morton's name comes up.

As Marie mentioned in an email to me, the boy who was paraded through
London as Edward Earl of Warwick was taken into Lambeth Palace
(Morton's bishophric residence) at the end of his performance, (And
never seen again...years later we hear that he had been executed.)

Now we find out that the Croyland Chronicler mentions an Abbott
Lambert at Ely. Morton was, of course, the Bishop of Ely.
(Personally, I think Morton was also the Croyland Chronicler.)

Morton journeyed to Stoke battlefield to personally take charge of
the boy Lincoln had had with him. And was that boy ever seen again?
I don't think he was the same boy who appears in London a little
later with that Lambert Simnel moniker. Some accounts say Simnel's
father was a baker. (There are so many variations in what should have
been a simple matter of identity that my suspiciousness would be
aroused by that alone. Simnel's father was a
baker/joiner/shoemaker/builder/organ-maker. The "ambitious priest"
was named Roger/Richard/William Simon/Simons/Symond/Symmonds...the
later could be a matter of the whimsical spellings of the era, but
I'd certainly expect more agreement re the occupation of the boy's
father. I would expect the whole affair to have been thoroughly
investigated and documented by Tudor's agents and a full report given
to him. Instead we get all this disagreement as to Simnel's
background other than that, they all agree, his father was a
tradesman, and not in one of the higher-class trades such as
goldsmithing, either. The boy was definitely a commoner, oh yes.)

It has been noted that simnel is a variety of wheat that makes a fine
flour bakers use, and that the Simnel name could be a joking
reference to one of "Lasmbert's" father's possible occupations.
Interestingly enough, in 1487 Moton had living in his household 10 or
11-year-old Thomas More, who had been given into the care of the --
can we call Morton an ambitious priest? (priest, I'm not sure -- he
was a specialist in canon law, having entered the church as an adult,
a secular lawyer, but ambitious, certainly) -- for his education by
his father, a baker. I am getting a weird echo here....

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I wouldn¹t put
> anything past Morton!
> Paul
>
>
> Me neither. He was the spider in the center of the web for several
> decades, methinks, and a bigger kingmaker than Warwick ever was.
And
> I notice that the deeper we delve into this Lambert Simnel
business,
> the more often Morton's name comes up.
>
> As Marie mentioned in an email to me, the boy who was paraded
through
> London as Edward Earl of Warwick was taken into Lambeth Palace
> (Morton's bishophric residence) at the end of his performance,
(And
> never seen again...years later we hear that he had been executed.)
>
> Now we find out that the Croyland Chronicler mentions an Abbott
> Lambert at Ely. Morton was, of course, the Bishop of Ely.
> (Personally, I think Morton was also the Croyland Chronicler.)
>
> Morton journeyed to Stoke battlefield to personally take charge of
> the boy Lincoln had had with him. And was that boy ever seen
again?
> I don't think he was the same boy who appears in London a little
> later with that Lambert Simnel moniker. Some accounts say Simnel's
> father was a baker. (There are so many variations in what should
have
> been a simple matter of identity that my suspiciousness would be
> aroused by that alone. Simnel's father was a
> baker/joiner/shoemaker/builder/organ-maker. The "ambitious priest"
> was named Roger/Richard/William Simon/Simons/Symond/Symmonds...the
> later could be a matter of the whimsical spellings of the era, but
> I'd certainly expect more agreement re the occupation of the boy's
> father.

Or, as Smith put it in his article, if they wan't to know what
Lambert's father did, why didn't they just ask him? He survived until
at least 1525.

It sounds as though either he gave a different answer every time, or
Vergil and Andre didn't approach him, somehow assuming there was
nothing to be learnt from him.




I would expect the whole affair to have been thoroughly
> investigated and documented by Tudor's agents and a full report
given
> to him. Instead we get all this disagreement as to Simnel's
> background other than that, they all agree, his father was a
> tradesman, and not in one of the higher-class trades such as
> goldsmithing, either. The boy was definitely a commoner, oh yes.)
>
> It has been noted that simnel is a variety of wheat that makes a
fine
> flour bakers use, and that the Simnel name could be a joking
> reference to one of "Lasmbert's" father's possible occupations.
> Interestingly enough, in 1487 Moton had living in his household 10
or
> 11-year-old Thomas More, who had been given into the care of the --
> can we call Morton an ambitious priest? (priest, I'm not sure --
he
> was a specialist in canon law, having entered the church as an
adult,
> a secular lawyer, but ambitious, certainly) -- for his education
by
> his father, a baker. I am getting a weird echo here....

Yes, it is beginning to sound like an in-joke, isn't it?

Marie

It is interesting to assess if Henry VII was insecure or not, his son and grandchildren certainly showed signs of it, and of cruelty which R3 never did.

Has anyone read the article (sorry cannot remember where) which links Thomas More with one of the princes, allegedly living with him and marrying one of his daughters. What do the group think???

I for one would love to know what Elizabeth Woodville knew that frightened Henry VII into silencing her. Wonder if Eliz of York knew as well (could it be of the existence of one of the princes?)

oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
I wouldn¹t put
anything past Morton!
Paul


Me neither. He was the spider in the center of the web for several
decades, methinks, and a bigger kingmaker than Warwick ever was. And
I notice that the deeper we delve into this Lambert Simnel business,
the more often Morton's name comes up.

As Marie mentioned in an email to me, the boy who was paraded through
London as Edward Earl of Warwick was taken into Lambeth Palace
(Morton's bishophric residence) at the end of his performance, (And
never seen again...years later we hear that he had been executed.)

Now we find out that the Croyland Chronicler mentions an Abbott
Lambert at Ely. Morton was, of course, the Bishop of Ely.
(Personally, I think Morton was also the Croyland Chronicler.)

Morton journeyed to Stoke battlefield to personally take charge of
the boy Lincoln had had with him. And was that boy ever seen again?
I don't think he was the same boy who appears in London a little
later with that Lambert Simnel moniker. Some accounts say Simnel's
father was a baker. (There are so many variations in what should have
been a simple matter of identity that my suspiciousness would be
aroused by that alone. Simnel's father was a
baker/joiner/shoemaker/builder/organ-maker. The "ambitious priest"
was named Roger/Richard/William Simon/Simons/Symond/Symmonds...the
later could be a matter of the whimsical spellings of the era, but
I'd certainly expect more agreement re the occupation of the boy's
father. I would expect the whole affair to have been thoroughly
investigated and documented by Tudor's agents and a full report given
to him. Instead we get all this disagreement as to Simnel's
background other than that, they all agree, his father was a
tradesman, and not in one of the higher-class trades such as
goldsmithing, either. The boy was definitely a commoner, oh yes.)

It has been noted that simnel is a variety of wheat that makes a fine
flour bakers use, and that the Simnel name could be a joking
reference to one of "Lasmbert's" father's possible occupations.
Interestingly enough, in 1487 Moton had living in his household 10 or
11-year-old Thomas More, who had been given into the care of the --
can we call Morton an ambitious priest? (priest, I'm not sure -- he
was a specialist in canon law, having entered the church as an adult,
a secular lawyer, but ambitious, certainly) -- for his education by
his father, a baker. I am getting a weird echo here....

Katy





Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!Messenger

--- In , marion cheatham
<marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> It is interesting to assess if Henry VII was insecure or not, his
son and grandchildren certainly showed signs of it, and of cruelty
which R3 never did.
>
> Has anyone read the article (sorry cannot remember where) which
links Thomas More with one of the princes, allegedly living with him
and marrying one of his daughters. What do the group think???

It's many many years ago now since I read the artc=icle - it was in
the Ricardian and would have been over 20 years ago. The author is
Jack Leslau. I also heard him speak at a London Branch meeting. He's
a good speaker and infectiously enthusiastic. BUT it's all based on a
particular version of the More family portrait (in Nostell Priory)
which includes the character in question. Name was John Harris (in
modern spelling), and there is a caption above him with his surname
in Latin - Heresius - which Leslau points out could equally be read
as 'heres jus' rightful heir, and thus concludes it was the rightful
heir to the throne, no less, who was meant and that therefore Harris
was Edward V. Except, no, it got even more compicated than that. I
can't recall the gist, but you end up with a supposed Edward V who
according to the records was a COMPLETELY different age from the real
one (I'm talking here about 25 years or something). I'll dig out the
article if anyone's interested but I wouldn't say it's convincing.
Leslau's been campaigning for years to get this man's body exhumed
and examined for DNA evidence, but not yet successful last time I
heard.

Marie

>
> I for one would love to know what Elizabeth Woodville knew that
frightened Henry VII into silencing her. Wonder if Eliz of York
knew as well (could it be of the existence of one of the princes?)

Possibly. Being a mother myself, I can't see that any amount of
disgruntlement with her own position was going to tempt her to unseat
her daughter from the throne unless either there was an even better
candidate (which would have to be one of her sons), or she had found
out something about Henry which meant she couldn't tolerate her
daughter being married to him, and him keeping the throne, any
longer.
As I mentioned to Katy in an email this am, I find it interesting
that Warwick's being shown to quiet suspicion seems actually to have
resulted in the defection of the two lords who best knew what he
looked like: ie Lincoln (who was in charge of the household at
Sheriff Hutton during Richard's riegn) and Dorset (who had Warwick's
wardship from 1478-1483).

Marie

>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I wouldn¹t put
> anything past Morton!
> Paul
>
>
> Me neither. He was the spider in the center of the web for several
> decades, methinks, and a bigger kingmaker than Warwick ever was.
And
> I notice that the deeper we delve into this Lambert Simnel
business,
> the more often Morton's name comes up.
>
> As Marie mentioned in an email to me, the boy who was paraded
through
> London as Edward Earl of Warwick was taken into Lambeth Palace
> (Morton's bishophric residence) at the end of his performance,
(And
> never seen again...years later we hear that he had been executed.)
>
> Now we find out that the Croyland Chronicler mentions an Abbott
> Lambert at Ely. Morton was, of course, the Bishop of Ely.
> (Personally, I think Morton was also the Croyland Chronicler.)
>
> Morton journeyed to Stoke battlefield to personally take charge of
> the boy Lincoln had had with him. And was that boy ever seen
again?
> I don't think he was the same boy who appears in London a little
> later with that Lambert Simnel moniker. Some accounts say Simnel's
> father was a baker. (There are so many variations in what should
have
> been a simple matter of identity that my suspiciousness would be
> aroused by that alone. Simnel's father was a
> baker/joiner/shoemaker/builder/organ-maker. The "ambitious priest"
> was named Roger/Richard/William Simon/Simons/Symond/Symmonds...the
> later could be a matter of the whimsical spellings of the era, but
> I'd certainly expect more agreement re the occupation of the boy's
> father. I would expect the whole affair to have been thoroughly
> investigated and documented by Tudor's agents and a full report
given
> to him. Instead we get all this disagreement as to Simnel's
> background other than that, they all agree, his father was a
> tradesman, and not in one of the higher-class trades such as
> goldsmithing, either. The boy was definitely a commoner, oh yes.)
>
> It has been noted that simnel is a variety of wheat that makes a
fine
> flour bakers use, and that the Simnel name could be a joking
> reference to one of "Lasmbert's" father's possible occupations.
> Interestingly enough, in 1487 Moton had living in his household 10
or
> 11-year-old Thomas More, who had been given into the care of the --
> can we call Morton an ambitious priest? (priest, I'm not sure --
he
> was a specialist in canon law, having entered the church as an
adult,
> a secular lawyer, but ambitious, certainly) -- for his education
by
> his father, a baker. I am getting a weird echo here....
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger
>
>

It's just an idea, of course, but if John Harris was about 25 years too young to have been Edward V, he was the perfect age to have been the SON of Edward V!
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Tudors


--- In , marion cheatham
<marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> It is interesting to assess if Henry VII was insecure or not, his
son and grandchildren certainly showed signs of it, and of cruelty
which R3 never did.
>
> Has anyone read the article (sorry cannot remember where) which
links Thomas More with one of the princes, allegedly living with him
and marrying one of his daughters. What do the group think???

It's many many years ago now since I read the artc=icle - it was in
the Ricardian and would have been over 20 years ago. The author is
Jack Leslau. I also heard him speak at a London Branch meeting. He's
a good speaker and infectiously enthusiastic. BUT it's all based on a
particular version of the More family portrait (in Nostell Priory)
which includes the character in question. Name was John Harris (in
modern spelling), and there is a caption above him with his surname
in Latin - Heresius - which Leslau points out could equally be read
as 'heres jus' rightful heir, and thus concludes it was the rightful
heir to the throne, no less, who was meant and that therefore Harris
was Edward V. Except, no, it got even more compicated than that. I
can't recall the gist, but you end up with a supposed Edward V who
according to the records was a COMPLETELY different age from the real
one (I'm talking here about 25 years or something). I'll dig out the
article if anyone's interested but I wouldn't say it's convincing.
Leslau's been campaigning for years to get this man's body exhumed
and examined for DNA evidence, but not yet successful last time I
heard.

Marie

>
> I for one would love to know what Elizabeth Woodville knew that
frightened Henry VII into silencing her. Wonder if Eliz of York
knew as well (could it be of the existence of one of the princes?)

Possibly. Being a mother myself, I can't see that any amount of
disgruntlement with her own position was going to tempt her to unseat
her daughter from the throne unless either there was an even better
candidate (which would have to be one of her sons), or she had found
out something about Henry which meant she couldn't tolerate her
daughter being married to him, and him keeping the throne, any
longer.
As I mentioned to Katy in an email this am, I find it interesting
that Warwick's being shown to quiet suspicion seems actually to have
resulted in the defection of the two lords who best knew what he
looked like: ie Lincoln (who was in charge of the household at
Sheriff Hutton during Richard's riegn) and Dorset (who had Warwick's
wardship from 1478-1483).

Marie

>
> oregonkaty <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "P.T.Bale"
> <paultrevor@b...> wrote:
> I wouldn¹t put
> anything past Morton!
> Paul
>
>
> Me neither. He was the spider in the center of the web for several
> decades, methinks, and a bigger kingmaker than Warwick ever was.
And
> I notice that the deeper we delve into this Lambert Simnel
business,
> the more often Morton's name comes up.
>
> As Marie mentioned in an email to me, the boy who was paraded
through
> London as Edward Earl of Warwick was taken into Lambeth Palace
> (Morton's bishophric residence) at the end of his performance,
(And
> never seen again...years later we hear that he had been executed.)
>
> Now we find out that the Croyland Chronicler mentions an Abbott
> Lambert at Ely. Morton was, of course, the Bishop of Ely.
> (Personally, I think Morton was also the Croyland Chronicler.)
>
> Morton journeyed to Stoke battlefield to personally take charge of
> the boy Lincoln had had with him. And was that boy ever seen
again?
> I don't think he was the same boy who appears in London a little
> later with that Lambert Simnel moniker. Some accounts say Simnel's
> father was a baker. (There are so many variations in what should
have
> been a simple matter of identity that my suspiciousness would be
> aroused by that alone. Simnel's father was a
> baker/joiner/shoemaker/builder/organ-maker. The "ambitious priest"
> was named Roger/Richard/William Simon/Simons/Symond/Symmonds...the
> later could be a matter of the whimsical spellings of the era, but
> I'd certainly expect more agreement re the occupation of the boy's
> father. I would expect the whole affair to have been thoroughly
> investigated and documented by Tudor's agents and a full report
given
> to him. Instead we get all this disagreement as to Simnel's
> background other than that, they all agree, his father was a
> tradesman, and not in one of the higher-class trades such as
> goldsmithing, either. The boy was definitely a commoner, oh yes.)
>
> It has been noted that simnel is a variety of wheat that makes a
fine
> flour bakers use, and that the Simnel name could be a joking
> reference to one of "Lasmbert's" father's possible occupations.
> Interestingly enough, in 1487 Moton had living in his household 10
or
> 11-year-old Thomas More, who had been given into the care of the --
> can we call Morton an ambitious priest? (priest, I'm not sure --
he
> was a specialist in canon law, having entered the church as an
adult,
> a secular lawyer, but ambitious, certainly) -- for his education
by
> his father, a baker. I am getting a weird echo here....
>
> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger
>
>


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > It is interesting to assess if Henry VII was insecure or not, his
> son and grandchildren certainly showed signs of it, and of cruelty
> which R3 never did.
> >
> > Has anyone read the article (sorry cannot remember where) which
> links Thomas More with one of the princes, allegedly living with
him
> and marrying one of his daughters. What do the group think???
>
> It's many many years ago now since I read the artc=icle - it was in
> the Ricardian and would have been over 20 years ago. The author is
> Jack Leslau. I also heard him speak at a London Branch meeting.
He's
> a good speaker and infectiously enthusiastic. BUT it's all based on
a
> particular version of the More family portrait (in Nostell Priory)
> which includes the character in question. Name was John Harris (in
> modern spelling), and there is a caption above him with his surname
> in Latin - Heresius - which Leslau points out could equally be read
> as 'heres jus' rightful heir, and thus concludes it was the
rightful
> heir to the throne, no less, who was meant and that therefore
Harris
> was Edward V. Except, no, it got even more compicated than that. I
> can't recall the gist, but you end up with a supposed Edward V who
> according to the records was a COMPLETELY different age from the
real
> one (I'm talking here about 25 years or something). I'll dig out
the
> article if anyone's interested but I wouldn't say it's convincing.
> Leslau's been campaigning for years to get this man's body exhumed
> and examined for DNA evidence, but not yet successful last time I
> heard.
>
> Marie
>
I have read that there has been a stry that the portrait of the
family of Sir Thomas More contains a secret and that it is that it
shows Richard of York there in the husehold. And I've read Leslau's
article.

The actual portrait, by Hans Holbein the Younger, as lost in a castle
fire many years ago. Centuries ago, I think. All that exists now is
a copy and the sketch Holbein sent to More fo his approval and upon
which More wrote caprions iddentifying each person and giving his
orher age. There are may fascinating things abut that sketch.

The later-done existing copy of the painting, however, has been
greatly altered from the sketch, and a person has been inserted who
never existed in the sketch. It's a young man leaning in through a
formerly-open door, or in through a door that also didn't exist in
the sketch. This is the person who is supposedly Richard of York in
a clever disguise, the man who married a More daughter.

Trouble is -- and I don't recall how Leslau squares this, if he did
at all -- it is a YOUNG man. The sketch was made in I believe 1527.
I don't have the notes at hand and I'm in a rush to write this and
don't have time to google it up, and the painting was finished a year
or so later. The correspondence between More and Holbein still
exists. But asnyway the date is very well established by More's
notation of everyone's age. Said he was 50, as I recall. That's
what works against the young man. More was born in 1477 or 78, and
Richard of York was a couple of years older. So if the spurious guy
in the doorway was Richard of York, he would have been a man in his
mid-fifties, not a young one. (And we know More's daughter married
sa man roughly her age, not one older than her father.)

The young man may well have been John Harris, who married one of
More's daughters, and the portrait may been innocently altered later
to include him simply because he had become one of the family and it
was a family portrait. I think that it is another case of separate
stories or instances getting melded together over time -- the story
that Richard of York had lived in More's household with the fact that
a man had been added to the More family portrait, supposedly
(postulating it was Richard of York) after it was safe to do so.

But I don't think we can dismiss the idea that Richard of York had a
connection to More, and as so often -- always? -- the connection is
John Morton.

Leaving that subject for a while, isn't it interesting that the
pretender stories -- Perkin Warbeck as well as Lambert Simnel -- and
other tales that a Yorkist scion survived, all revolve around either
Edward Earl of Warwick or Richard of York? You'd think someone would
have claimed to have, or claimed to be, the elder son, the heir, to
trump all the others. It makes me think that somehow it was accepted
that Edward (of York -- is that his proper appellation?) was dead.
(Supposedly everyone knew they both were dead and Richard did it, but
that doesn't seem to have been the case.)

Katy

--- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , marion cheatham
> > <marion_cheatham@y...> wrote:
> > > It is interesting to assess if Henry VII was insecure or not,
his
> > son and grandchildren certainly showed signs of it, and of
cruelty
> > which R3 never did.
> > >
> > > Has anyone read the article (sorry cannot remember where) which
> > links Thomas More with one of the princes, allegedly living with
> him
> > and marrying one of his daughters. What do the group think???
> >
> > It's many many years ago now since I read the artc=icle - it was
in
> > the Ricardian and would have been over 20 years ago. The author
is
> > Jack Leslau. I also heard him speak at a London Branch meeting.
> He's
> > a good speaker and infectiously enthusiastic. BUT it's all based
on
> a
> > particular version of the More family portrait (in Nostell
Priory)
> > which includes the character in question. Name was John Harris
(in
> > modern spelling), and there is a caption above him with his
surname
> > in Latin - Heresius - which Leslau points out could equally be
read
> > as 'heres jus' rightful heir, and thus concludes it was the
> rightful
> > heir to the throne, no less, who was meant and that therefore
> Harris
> > was Edward V. Except, no, it got even more compicated than that.
I
> > can't recall the gist, but you end up with a supposed Edward V
who
> > according to the records was a COMPLETELY different age from the
> real
> > one (I'm talking here about 25 years or something). I'll dig out
> the
> > article if anyone's interested but I wouldn't say it's
convincing.
> > Leslau's been campaigning for years to get this man's body
exhumed
> > and examined for DNA evidence, but not yet successful last time I
> > heard.
> >
> > Marie
> >
Hmmm. I got out a copy of More's genealogy, and I don't find a John
Harris who married a More daughter.

More had four children who survived to adulthood. (One died in
infancy at about the same time More's wife died): Margaret who
married William Roper, Elizabeth who married William Dauncey,
Cecilia, who married Giles Heron, and John who married Anne
Cresacre. More's second wife was a widow, Alice Middleton, whose
daughter Alice was brought up in More's household; she married first
Thomas Hitchin and then Sir Giles Ailington.

John Harris actually was the husband of Dorothy Coly, Margaret More's
maid, but he was a family intimate becase he was More's secretary.
The book I'm looking at is "The Life of Sir Thomas More" by Thomas
Stapleton, Philip Hallett translation (1966 edition) which is from
The Catholic Book Club and is, as one might expect, a Valentine to
More. It says "John Harris was More's secretary in later years. In
the Nostell version of the Holbein family group, he is shown in the
doorway. He married Dorothy Coly, Margaret Roper's maid. He became
master of Bristol Grammar School in 1561 but was dispossessed the
same year; he went into exile and matriculated at Louvain on
1565...He died before 1588 while his widow was still living."

I think that eliminates John Harris was Richard of York. The timing
of the events of Harris's later life are obviously impossible to
reconcile with York's having been born in 1474.

"The Drawings of Hans Holbein at Windsor Castle" shows the sketch on
page 34 and dates it as no later than Feb 7, 1527 -- the portrait was
done to commemorate More's 50th birthday. The book says the original
was probably lost in a fire at the Palace of Kremsier in 1752. "See
Burlington Magazine, Vol LXXXIII (1943) p 279; Vol LXXXIV (1944)
p 129 and 134." (Could someone?) In the sketch the doorway that
will one day be occupied by John Harris is empty and two outline
figures are sitting at a table in an adjoining room. To continue
with the Windsor Castle collection catalogue, "A copy of the lost
picture, signed Ricardus Locky Fec Ano 1530, is in the possession of
Lord St. Oswald at Nostell Prior (see M. W. Brockwell, Catalogue of
the Pictures at Nostell Priory, 1915, pp 82 seq.) Various other
copies with modifications and additiona figures of later members of
the family exist." The portrasit sems to have been sort of a family
album, with people added as events unfolded.

Katy

> From: "brunhild613" <brunhild@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 14:39:17 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Gipping Hall
>
> Hence my namesake
> meets the allegedly same fate as Jezebel in 613AD,
what threw herself on a funeral pyre with the orchestra having an orgasm in
the background?<G> Or do you not mean Brunhild?
> I am not aware of any such legend being attached to King John, which would be
>surprising, since many authors of the period had little good to say of him, and
>his reputation is almost as black as Richard's has been portrayed.
No legend at all. See my article on the lmb website comparing the
reputations of Richard and John.
Worse accusation against John, that he personally murdered his nephew
Arthur.
> I think Morton was very shady indeed, as was Margaret Beaufort in my
>opinion.
I always wish he had genuinely changed sides and been on the Yorkist side,
devious but undoubtedly very clever, yet a die hard Lancastrian. Margaret
Beaufort always wanted one thing, her son on the throne.
>I remember watching "The trial of Richard III" many years
>ago and being astonished at the way an historian of Starkey's
>calibre could accept what More and Morton told us. (I have since
>severly adjusted my view of Starkey's calibre!)
I am amazed anybody, not just Starkey, could swallow that rubbish and give
it any credence. I guess if Sir Thomas hadn¹t been canonised, and I still do
not understand why he was - I know the official reasons, but still think it
odd - fewer people would believe him. Clearly as we all Œknow¹ saints can¹t
be wrong!
>Any material
>originating with Morton must be handled with extreme caution. I also
>suspect that people are a little too trusting of Crowland who, if it
>was Russell, has his own axes to grind too
Agreed in both cases.
Paul

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>
>> I am amazed anybody, not just Starkey, could swallow that rubbish
and give
> it any credence. I guess if Sir Thomas hadn¹t been canonised, and I
still do
> not understand why he was - I know the official reasons, but still
think it
> odd - fewer people would believe him. Clearly as we all Œknow¹
saints can¹t
> be wrong!

Having read quite a bit by and about "the sainted More" I am
convinced that he was a man born out of his proper time, all right --
he would have earned a fortune as a "spin doctor" in the 20th and
21st centuries. He was a tireless self-promoter and after his death
two of his sons-in-law and later a grandson, a tutor in his household
and his secretary, took over, publicizing his wonderfuless far and
near. The tutor, John Clement, and the secretary, John Harris, went
into exile after his death and immigrated to Louvain, where they set
up a sort of Thomas More Appreciation Society. One son-in-law was a
printer who made More's essays and dissertations available and
churned out still more praise. More became sort of a symbolic martyr
for his faith and integrity primarily by saying that's what he was.
He never actually put his objections to the oath cogently in words,
as John Fisher (Bishop of London, who preceded More up the scaffold
steps) did so eloquently.

Much of what More did does not bear close scrutiny. He definitely
perjured himself in the Hunne affair, evidently believing he could
get away with it because the records would be sealed for all eternity
or evenually purged and destroyed unexamined. He was wrong. Frankly,
I think More desperately wanted to be famous, or at least remembered
after his death, and he seized upon resisting the oath with clear
intention of making himself a martyr.

Peter Ackroyd's good biography of More was published in 1998. It's
interesting to read it and watch his biographer getting increasingly
disillusioned by More, only to drag himself back to professing to
find him admirable in the epilog.

Katy

By the way, I think More wrote only part of the R III character
assassination that bears his name. The first part of the story was
composed by a giftd writer -- it sings. The pacing is wonderful, the
scenes come alive. It's downright cinematic. In the middle of a
page the style changes so abruptly that the reader gets a whiplash,
into More's characterstic turgid style, and some ground that had
already been covered is plowed again. I'm convnced that More swiped
someone else's material, muddied up the end, and claimed it as his
own. He did the same thing with some work by Erasmus of Rotterdam.

--- In , "P.T.Bale"
<paultrevor@b...> wrote:
>
>

> >Any material
> >originating with Morton must be handled with extreme caution. I
also
> >suspect that people are a little too trusting of Crowland who, if
it
> >was Russell, has his own axes to grind too
> Agreed in both cases.
> Paul

I've always thought Morton was a very good candidate as the Croyland
Chronicler, yet in my reading I have repeatedly seen him shrugged
off. Can someone tell me why? He was on the lam at the time,
Croyland Abbey was in his bailiwick as Bishop of Ely, and I can see
him whiling away his time waiting for a boat to arrive to take him
away, writing down his propaganda.

katy

>
> Much of what More did does not bear close scrutiny. He definitely
> perjured himself in the Hunne affair, evidently believing he could
> get away with it because the records would be sealed for all
eternity
> or evenually purged and destroyed unexamined. He was wrong.
Frankly,
> I think More desperately wanted to be famous, or at least
remembered
> after his death, and he seized upon resisting the oath with clear
> intention of making himself a martyr.
>
> Peter Ackroyd's good biography of More was published in 1998.
It's
> interesting to read it and watch his biographer getting
increasingly
> disillusioned by More, only to drag himself back to professing to
> find him admirable in the epilog.
>
> Katy
>
> By the way, I think More wrote only part of the R III character
> assassination that bears his name. The first part of the story
was
> composed by a giftd writer -- it sings. The pacing is wonderful,
the
> scenes come alive. It's downright cinematic. In the middle of a
> page the style changes so abruptly that the reader gets a
whiplash,
> into More's characterstic turgid style, and some ground that had
> already been covered is plowed again. I'm convnced that More
swiped
> someone else's material, muddied up the end, and claimed it as his
> own. He did the same thing with some work by Erasmus of Rotterdam.

I always did think More was neither particularly saintly nor above
suspicion in his motives. He was not, of course, aiming to write the
truth but perhaps the equivalent of the best-seller. Truth is
irrelevant where sales are concerned. Indeed I once had a very
heated discussion with a rather silly person who though he was
virtually divine and infallible. Some people simply have no
discernment. Neither she nor More seem to have had much.
Brunhild

>
> Much of what More did does not bear close scrutiny. He definitely
> perjured himself in the Hunne affair, evidently believing he could
> get away with it because the records would be sealed for all
eternity
> or evenually purged and destroyed unexamined. He was wrong.
Frankly,
> I think More desperately wanted to be famous, or at least
remembered
> after his death, and he seized upon resisting the oath with clear
> intention of making himself a martyr.
>
> Peter Ackroyd's good biography of More was published in 1998.
It's
> interesting to read it and watch his biographer getting
increasingly
> disillusioned by More, only to drag himself back to professing to
> find him admirable in the epilog.
>
> Katy
>
> By the way, I think More wrote only part of the R III character
> assassination that bears his name. The first part of the story
was
> composed by a giftd writer -- it sings. The pacing is wonderful,
the
> scenes come alive. It's downright cinematic. In the middle of a
> page the style changes so abruptly that the reader gets a
whiplash,
> into More's characterstic turgid style, and some ground that had
> already been covered is plowed again. I'm convnced that More
swiped
> someone else's material, muddied up the end, and claimed it as his
> own. He did the same thing with some work by Erasmus of Rotterdam.

I always did think More was neither particularly saintly nor above
suspicion in his motives. He was not, of course, aiming to write the
truth but perhaps the equivalent of the best-seller. Truth is
irrelevant where sales are concerned. Indeed I once had a very
heated discussion with a rather silly person who though he was
virtually divine and infallible. Some people simply have no
discernment. Neither she nor More seem to have had much.
Brunhild

> From: oregonkaty <[email protected]>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 14:12:12 -0000
> To:
> Subject: Re: Gipping Hall
>
> I'm convnced that More swiped
> someone else's material, muddied up the end, and claimed it as his
> own.
to be fair, and I hate to be fair to this man<G> BUT he never appears to
have intended it for publication.
Paul

I'm sorry to say that I consider the Tudors to be an excuse for soft pornography; the historical accuracy is of secondary importance. According to contemporary sources, Henry VIII was a grossly obese impotent maniac by the time he married Katherine Howard who must've regretted that she thought money could buy her love.

Rogue <roguefem@...> wrote:

> The major difference was that Edward left his women alive afterward. One might almost think Henry was afraid of what his 'conquests' might reveal if they decided to kiss and tell, while Edward would probably just consider it extra publicity. ;-)

Carol responds:

Then again, there's Eleanor Talbot, aka Eleanor Butler. Assuming that the precontract/marriage story is true (and I believe that it is), neither she nor her family spoke up. Were they afraid of retribution, especially after Edward's notorious May marriage to Elizabeth Woodville?

Carol, glad to be "warm" in Tucson, where the high today will be 38 degrees Fahrenheit

I can tell what you are thinking and I feel that Edward V lies there, although not his brother. I have viewed the Chapel but it is technically private and surely needs more accurate prediction than my feeling, if Greyfriars is anything to go by.
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Gippling Hall



Does anyone know if the connection between Gipping Hall and the possible fate of the princes has ever been investigated. I know that the Hall no longer exists but understand that James Tyrells chapel does. Has anyone undertaken an inventory of the tombs etc.

Would appreciate comments and any further information.

Many thanks

Marion

You might want to have a look at this --

http://books.google.com/books?id=bA9bAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=gipping&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6TuUfL0EsnM8AGX9YFg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gipping&f=false

(Or search Google Books for Gipping - this was my first hit; perhaps there
are more)

pp 23-33 is an article on the Tyrell Chapel at Gipping (including some
drawings of the chapel). Author says no burials, but does add in a
footnote on p 24

The writer, while attempting to discover the history of this chapel, was
led to inquire into the real facts in the life of its great restorer. And
in a paper read on May 11th, ult., before the Society of Antiquaries, he
thinks he has proved from contemporary documents (as far as it is possible
to prove a negative,) that Sir James Tyrell is not to be held guilty of the
murders of the princes in 1483, and that he cannot be shown to have been
even remotely concerned in that atrocious deed.

It is well worth checking Google Books, because there's a lot of material
like this hidden away in old books. Now happily accessible electronically,
at least here in the US.

A J



On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I can tell what you are thinking and I feel that Edward V lies there,
> although not his brother. I have viewed the Chapel but it is technically
> private and surely needs more accurate prediction than my feeling, if
> Greyfriars is anything to go by.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: marion cheatham
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:07 PM
> Subject: Gippling Hall
>
> Does anyone know if the connection between Gipping Hall and the possible
> fate of the princes has ever been investigated. I know that the Hall no
> longer exists but understand that James Tyrells chapel does. Has anyone
> undertaken an inventory of the tombs etc.
>
> Would appreciate comments and any further information.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Marion
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've just uploaded to the files area, a typed copy of an article by the
same author (long-winded) about the life of Sir James Tyrell. If anyone
else does have a look at it, I'd appreciate any critique, especially
regarding the author's notion that it was a mistake that Tyrell helped de
la Pole when he "escaped" to the continent the 2nd time.

Also the author refers to the "accurate author" of a then still unprinted
MS in the British Museum

"Vitell. A. XVI."

Has this been printed by now?

A J


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> You might want to have a look at this --
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=bA9bAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=gipping&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6TuUfL0EsnM8AGX9YFg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gipping&f=false
>
> (Or search Google Books for Gipping - this was my first hit; perhaps there
> are more)
>
> pp 23-33 is an article on the Tyrell Chapel at Gipping (including some
> drawings of the chapel). Author says no burials, but does add in a
> footnote on p 24
>
> The writer, while attempting to discover the history of this chapel, was
> led to inquire into the real facts in the life of its great restorer. And
> in a paper read on May 11th, ult., before the Society of Antiquaries, he
> thinks he has proved from contemporary documents (as far as it is possible
> to prove a negative,) that Sir James Tyrell is not to be held guilty of the
> murders of the princes in 1483, and that he cannot be shown to have been
> even remotely concerned in that atrocious deed.
>
> It is well worth checking Google Books, because there's a lot of material
> like this hidden away in old books. Now happily accessible electronically,
> at least here in the US.
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I can tell what you are thinking and I feel that Edward V lies there,
>> although not his brother. I have viewed the Chapel but it is technically
>> private and surely needs more accurate prediction than my feeling, if
>> Greyfriars is anything to go by.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: marion cheatham
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:07 PM
>> Subject: Gippling Hall
>>
>> Does anyone know if the connection between Gipping Hall and the possible
>> fate of the princes has ever been investigated. I know that the Hall no
>> longer exists but understand that James Tyrells chapel does. Has anyone
>> undertaken an inventory of the tombs etc.
>>
>> Would appreciate comments and any further information.
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> Marion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Thanks AJ. You're right about the good old books now surfacing.
 
Anyone out there - what do we know about the relationship of the Hautes (Woodville relations) with the Tyrells with the Catesbys? The Hautes (Sir Richard, James (husband of R's supposed mistress) and Dame Katherine) seem to mention the Tyrells in their wills and Dame Katherine talks about 'my sister Catesby' obviously not Margaret Zouche?  H   


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2013, 17:58
Subject: Re: Gipping Hall


I've just uploaded to the files area, a typed copy of an article by the
same author (long-winded) about the life of Sir James Tyrell.  If anyone
else does have a look at it, I'd appreciate any critique, especially
regarding the author's notion that it was a mistake that Tyrell helped de
la Pole when he "escaped" to the continent the 2nd time.

Also the author refers to the "accurate author" of a then still unprinted
MS in the British Museum

"Vitell.  A. XVI."

Has this been printed by now?

A J


On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> You might want to have a look at this --
>
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=bA9bAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA23&dq=gipping&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p6TuUfL0EsnM8AGX9YFg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=gipping&f=false
>
> (Or search Google Books for Gipping - this was my first hit; perhaps there
> are more)
>
> pp 23-33 is an article on the Tyrell Chapel at Gipping (including some
> drawings of the chapel).  Author says no burials, but does add in a
> footnote on p 24
>
> The writer, while attempting to discover the history of this chapel, was
> led to inquire into the real facts in the life of its great restorer.  And
> in a paper read on May 11th, ult., before the Society of Antiquaries, he
> thinks he has proved from contemporary documents (as far as it is possible
> to prove a negative,) that Sir James Tyrell is not to be held guilty of the
> murders of the princes in 1483, and that he cannot be shown to have been
> even remotely concerned in that atrocious deed.
>
> It is well worth checking Google Books, because there's a lot of material
> like this hidden away in old books.  Now happily accessible electronically,
> at least here in the US.
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I can tell what you are thinking and I feel that Edward V lies there,
>> although not his brother. I have viewed the Chapel but it is technically
>> private and surely needs more accurate prediction than my feeling, if
>> Greyfriars is anything to go by.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: marion cheatham
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 4:07 PM
>> Subject: Gippling Hall
>>
>> Does anyone know if the connection between Gipping Hall and the possible
>> fate of the princes has ever been investigated. I know that the Hall no
>> longer exists but understand that James Tyrells chapel does. Has anyone
>> undertaken an inventory of the tombs etc.
>>
>> Would appreciate comments and any further information.
>>
>> Many thanks
>>
>> Marion
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links