Execution orders?

Hi all,

I'm hoping someone may be able to offer pointers on a resarch project
that I'm working on.

Where might I find either the acts of attainder or the execution
orders for individuals executed at the Tower or at Tower Green? I'm
looking specifically for individuals executed between 1461-1509,
though later information could also be helpful.

I've already looked through some parts of MS Harl. 433 -- the
university from which I graduated has extracts covering various
reigns, but there's nothing in there.

The reprints (published in 1854) do have what looks like a fairly
comprehensive collection from the 'Reign of Edward the Fifth'
(quoting title). Interestingly, the Duke of Buckingham receives two
very large grants (text is in Latin), the first dated May 15. Has
anyone ever done a study of these texts?

Also, I looked through the book in the series that covers the reigns
of Richard III and Henry VII. There's a long introduction by Gairdner
(the editor) in which Perkin Warbeck is discussed at length, and
there are numerous references to Warbeck in official correspondence.
But the collection (which admittedly may be incomplete) didn't seem
to have a single solitary reference to Lambert Simnell.

Kellie

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm hoping someone may be able to offer pointers on a resarch
project
> that I'm working on.
>
> Where might I find either the acts of attainder or the execution
> orders for individuals executed at the Tower or at Tower Green? I'm
> looking specifically for individuals executed between 1461-1509,
> though later information could also be helpful.

I'm not sure but I think for "our" period there probably isn't a
simple answer. Acts of Attainder would presumably be in the
Parliament Rolls. Orders for execution would depend on the
circumstances. Clarence was tried by Parliament so presumably ditto.
Hastings' execution arose out of a council meeting, but the council
records for the period don't survive. So as a result there is still
room for speculation as to whether he was actually beheaded or killed
in some sort of an affray, and whether it happened on 13th or 20th.

There may be records of other relevant trials, but Tower Green didn't
become a favoured execution spot until Tudor times.

I know there are records for the Tower of London itself, but again I
think they start quite a bit later.

I think in some cases all we have are contemporary reports from
chronicles, letters, etc.

Do you have a list of the executions you're looking for?

Marie




>
> I've already looked through some parts of MS Harl. 433 -- the
> university from which I graduated has extracts covering various
> reigns, but there's nothing in there.
>
> The reprints (published in 1854) do have what looks like a fairly
> comprehensive collection from the 'Reign of Edward the Fifth'
> (quoting title). Interestingly, the Duke of Buckingham receives two
> very large grants (text is in Latin), the first dated May 15. Has
> anyone ever done a study of these texts?

TheSociety's edition of Harley 433 gives English translations of all
the Latin entries. I don't know whether anyone's studied the grants
properly - they're enormous, aren't they? Unfortunately, Louise
Gill's book on Buckingham's rebellion was really just about the
rebellion and though very useful for that doesn't shed much light on
Buckingham himself.
>
> Also, I looked through the book in the series that covers the
reigns
> of Richard III and Henry VII. There's a long introduction by
Gairdner
> (the editor) in which Perkin Warbeck is discussed at length, and
> there are numerous references to Warbeck in official
correspondence.
> But the collection (which admittedly may be incomplete) didn't seem
> to have a single solitary reference to Lambert Simnell.
>
> Kellie

No. He's oddly ignored, our Lambert, isn't he? I notice from Bennett
that some contemporary note mentions himself and the "real Warwick"
being exhibited together in London after Stoke, but there seems to be
no official record of this. Of course, he was never tried, though
apparently he was kept in the Tower for a period.

Marie

Hi Marie,

Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. The problem I'm running
into is, as you said, that there is no simple answer as to /where/
these documents might be found, if any source documents outside
chronicles exist at this point - and the chronicles are often far
from reliable.

The specific individuals I'm hoping to find information for would
include:

12th Earl of Oxford and his son
William, Lord Hastings
George, Duke of Clarence
Edward, Earl of Warwick
Perkin Warbeck
Sir James Tyrell

Documentation for some of the above (ex: Hastings) may simply not
have survived.



> TheSociety's edition of Harley 433 gives English translations of
all
> the Latin entries. I don't know whether anyone's studied the grants
> properly - they're enormous, aren't they? Unfortunately, Louise
> Gill's book on Buckingham's rebellion was really just about the
> rebellion and though very useful for that doesn't shed much light
on
> Buckingham himself.

I think I'm going to have to invest in the Society's Harley reprint
if it's still available. My Latin is not up to doing any fine,
detailed textual analysis. But with everything in English, it could
be interesting to do a study of the Buckingham grants as well as the
other correspondence issued under Edward V's signature.

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> Hi Marie,
>
> Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. The problem I'm
running
> into is, as you said, that there is no simple answer as to /where/
> these documents might be found, if any source documents outside
> chronicles exist at this point - and the chronicles are often far
> from reliable.
>
> The specific individuals I'm hoping to find information for would
> include:
>
> 12th Earl of Oxford and his son
> William, Lord Hastings
> George, Duke of Clarence
> Edward, Earl of Warwick
> Perkin Warbeck
> Sir James Tyrell
>
> Documentation for some of the above (ex: Hastings) may simply not
> have survived.
>


Okay, I've not found answers, but I have found a couple of places to
find answers.

For the trial and execution of the de Veres, Ross gives as his source
Scofield's 'Edward IV' and refers the reader to the sources she
cites. That would be volume 1.

Clarence, as I said, would probably be the Parliament Rolls.

Ann Wroe's endnotes to her 'Perkin' cites sources for the trial and
sentence of Warwick (pp528-9 in the paperback edition). The documents
in question would seem to be in the Public Record Office.

Bye for now.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "meenivettle"
> <meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > Hi Marie,
> >
> > Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. The problem I'm
> running
> > into is, as you said, that there is no simple answer as
to /where/
> > these documents might be found, if any source documents outside
> > chronicles exist at this point - and the chronicles are often far
> > from reliable.
> >
> > The specific individuals I'm hoping to find information for would
> > include:
> >
> > 12th Earl of Oxford and his son
> > William, Lord Hastings
> > George, Duke of Clarence
> > Edward, Earl of Warwick
> > Perkin Warbeck
> > Sir James Tyrell
> >
> > Documentation for some of the above (ex: Hastings) may simply not
> > have survived.
> >
>
>
> Okay, I've not found answers, but I have found a couple of places
to
> find answers.
>
> For the trial and execution of the de Veres, Ross gives as his
source
> Scofield's 'Edward IV' and refers the reader to the sources she
> cites. That would be volume 1.
>
> Clarence, as I said, would probably be the Parliament Rolls.
>
> Ann Wroe's endnotes to her 'Perkin' cites sources for the trial and
> sentence of Warwick (pp528-9 in the paperback edition). The
documents
> in question would seem to be in the Public Record Office.
>
> Bye for now.
>
> Marie

Thank you so much, Marie!

-Kellie

Saw That Play at Stratford on Sat. night.

I'm not the sort of Ricardian who goes round mopping up productions
of it, and I'm sure this isn't the best, but not having either seen
or read it for many many years it brought home to me just how much
Shakespeare had to "tweak" things to make the story of Richard's
killing the Princes appear to make sense. Even he evidently saw the
problem, in that it left many more Yorkist heirs who were just as
much before him in the direct line of descent.
Firstly, he has to have Richard appear to murder Anne pretty well at
the same time in order to instantly offer himself to Elizabeth of
York, to neutralise the threat that killing her brothers had,
perforce, made of her.
Secondly, he has to claim falsely that Richard locked up Warwick and
neutralised Margaret of Clarence through a disparaging marriage.
Well, we all know who really did that.
Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been. It
just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose, and the
son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He could
of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he didn't.
So why the Princes?

Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me thinking
the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that neither
he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?

I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with believing
PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If the
Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?

But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
1485. . . .

There's something about the idea that the adult members of the House
of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking their
lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the silliness
of it at junior school?

It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.

any thoughts??

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Saw That Play at Stratford on Sat. night.
>
> I'm not the sort of Ricardian who goes round mopping up
productions
> of it, and I'm sure this isn't the best, but not having either
seen
> or read it for many many years it brought home to me just how much
> Shakespeare had to "tweak" things to make the story of Richard's
> killing the Princes appear to make sense. Even he evidently saw
the
> problem, in that it left many more Yorkist heirs who were just as
> much before him in the direct line of descent.
> Firstly, he has to have Richard appear to murder Anne pretty well
at
> the same time in order to instantly offer himself to Elizabeth of
> York, to neutralise the threat that killing her brothers had,
> perforce, made of her.
> Secondly, he has to claim falsely that Richard locked up Warwick
and
> neutralised Margaret of Clarence through a disparaging marriage.
> Well, we all know who really did that.
> Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
> motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been.
It
> just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose, and
the
> son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He
could
> of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he
didn't.
> So why the Princes?
>
> Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me thinking
> the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that
neither
> he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?
>
> I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with
believing
> PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If the
> Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
> Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?
>
> But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
> Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
> 1485. . . .
>
> There's something about the idea that the adult members of the
House
> of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking
their
> lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
> convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the
silliness
> of it at junior school?
>
> It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
> dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.
>
> any thoughts??
>
> Marie

$64,000 question! It doesn't help that the portrait sketch of
Warbeck is done from the same angle as the best known portrait of
Edward IV, thereby maximising any likeleness, but the result is a
spectacular resemblance, which was apparently noted at the time. The
puzzle for me has long been John of Lincoln's behaviour, as there is
no suggestion that he was using the Simnel affair to take the throne
himself. If the boys were dead and known to be dead then I can't see
him standing by to pop an Oxford yokel on the throne, or even using
at as a cover for his own move. Why bother? If they were known to be
dead his claim was a good one, why not go for it? Makes no sense to
me. Then there are things like the wording of the 1484 act of
parliament referring to the princes in the present tense, suggesting
they didn't think they were dead then. Frankly the only thing that
makes sense (to me) of Richard's silence about any rumours (and I am
no longer convinced that such rumours abounded) was that they were
not dead but he couldn't afford for rivals to find out where they
actually were. In which case a. he may have thereby signed his own
death warrant and b. they could have lived to be Simnel or Warbeck.
Brunhild

I've got the same problems squaring the facts. Some things just don't
make sense:

1. The behavior of John de la Pole in the events leading up to the
Battle of Stoke. Why would an adult with an acknowledged claim risk
his neck to put up an obvious pretender?

2. Elizabeth Woodville's forced retirement to an abbey in 1487.

3. The Marquess of Dorset's incarceration at about the same time.

4. The fact that some of Cecily Neville's household staff were
implicated in the Warbeck rebellion at the time of her death in 1495.

(5. I'm not sure of the sources on this one or whether it's reliable,
but I recall reading somewhere that there had been a report from
Canterbury about Sir Robert Brackenbury and the 'Lord Bastard' being
there and on their way to Calais.)

6. The fact that nobody produced bodies when it would have been
prudent to do so.

I'm just not convinced the Princes were murdered in the Tower,
period. And think it within the realm of possibility that one or both
survived well into Henry VII's reign.

Kellie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Saw That Play at Stratford on Sat. night.
>
> I'm not the sort of Ricardian who goes round mopping up productions
> of it, and I'm sure this isn't the best, but not having either seen
> or read it for many many years it brought home to me just how much
> Shakespeare had to "tweak" things to make the story of Richard's
> killing the Princes appear to make sense. Even he evidently saw the
> problem, in that it left many more Yorkist heirs who were just as
> much before him in the direct line of descent.
> Firstly, he has to have Richard appear to murder Anne pretty well
at
> the same time in order to instantly offer himself to Elizabeth of
> York, to neutralise the threat that killing her brothers had,
> perforce, made of her.
> Secondly, he has to claim falsely that Richard locked up Warwick
and
> neutralised Margaret of Clarence through a disparaging marriage.
> Well, we all know who really did that.
> Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
> motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been. It
> just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose, and
the
> son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He could
> of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he
didn't.
> So why the Princes?
>
> Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me thinking
> the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that neither
> he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?
>
> I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with
believing
> PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If the
> Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
> Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?
>
> But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
> Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
> 1485. . . .
>
> There's something about the idea that the adult members of the
House
> of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking their
> lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
> convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the
silliness
> of it at junior school?
>
> It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
> dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.
>
> any thoughts??
>
> Marie

In this respect I am beginning to think that Simnel was not the same person as the figure-head and previous reading implies that Henry VII could have had the real Edward killed and Simnel put in his place.

Warbeck I am more convinced was Richard of York - he never once slipped up, he
convinced many in the know and Henry never enabled Elizabeth of York to meet with
him - perhaps he knew she would have recognised him.

The Elizabeth Woodville nunnery saga also is strange. She was not a woman who
would or should enter such an institution.

That the boys were alive and safely hidden in Richards time is more in keeping with
his character, he never harmed Edward Clarence or any of the princes sisters.

The bones found in the Tower could shed some light on it, DNA is very advanced now.
they may prove if the bones were or were not the princes - if they were then who did what and when would still be in question, if they are not then that throws the whole thing wide
open.

I feel that all this whitewash about the Windsors not wanting to open the tomb is rubbish, after all Edward could have a ball with the video rights etc and the bones should be public property.

When archaeologists dig around and surface bones elsewhere the relatives cannot not be
asked for permission and lets be honest they are someones ancestors.



meenivettle <meenivettle@...> wrote:
I've got the same problems squaring the facts. Some things just don't
make sense:

1. The behavior of John de la Pole in the events leading up to the
Battle of Stoke. Why would an adult with an acknowledged claim risk
his neck to put up an obvious pretender?

2. Elizabeth Woodville's forced retirement to an abbey in 1487.

3. The Marquess of Dorset's incarceration at about the same time.

4. The fact that some of Cecily Neville's household staff were
implicated in the Warbeck rebellion at the time of her death in 1495.

(5. I'm not sure of the sources on this one or whether it's reliable,
but I recall reading somewhere that there had been a report from
Canterbury about Sir Robert Brackenbury and the 'Lord Bastard' being
there and on their way to Calais.)

6. The fact that nobody produced bodies when it would have been
prudent to do so.

I'm just not convinced the Princes were murdered in the Tower,
period. And think it within the realm of possibility that one or both
survived well into Henry VII's reign.

Kellie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Saw That Play at Stratford on Sat. night.
>
> I'm not the sort of Ricardian who goes round mopping up productions
> of it, and I'm sure this isn't the best, but not having either seen
> or read it for many many years it brought home to me just how much
> Shakespeare had to "tweak" things to make the story of Richard's
> killing the Princes appear to make sense. Even he evidently saw the
> problem, in that it left many more Yorkist heirs who were just as
> much before him in the direct line of descent.
> Firstly, he has to have Richard appear to murder Anne pretty well
at
> the same time in order to instantly offer himself to Elizabeth of
> York, to neutralise the threat that killing her brothers had,
> perforce, made of her.
> Secondly, he has to claim falsely that Richard locked up Warwick
and
> neutralised Margaret of Clarence through a disparaging marriage.
> Well, we all know who really did that.
> Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
> motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been. It
> just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose, and
the
> son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He could
> of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he
didn't.
> So why the Princes?
>
> Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me thinking
> the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that neither
> he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?
>
> I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with
believing
> PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If the
> Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
> Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?
>
> But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
> Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
> 1485. . . .
>
> There's something about the idea that the adult members of the
House
> of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking their
> lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
> convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the
silliness
> of it at junior school?
>
> It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
> dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.
>
> any thoughts??
>
> Marie


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.


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

--- In , marion cheatham
<marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> In this respect I am beginning to think that Simnel was not the
same person as the figure-head and previous reading implies that
Henry VII could have had the real Edward killed and Simnel put in
his place.

Do you mean the pretender initially was the real Edward V and once
seized was replaced with Simnel by Henry?
>
> Warbeck I am more convinced was Richard of York - he never once
slipped up, he
> convinced many in the know and Henry never enabled Elizabeth of
York to meet with
> him - perhaps he knew she would have recognised him.

Yet did Warbeck not spend a little time at court before he fled and
was then sent to the Tower? Is there evidence that she never met him
even then?
>
> The Elizabeth Woodville nunnery saga also is strange. She was not
a woman who
> would or should enter such an institution.

No, and her secret burial adds to the whole suspicious situation.
Besides, would she have told Dorset to come home to Richard if he
had killed her boys? Let alone handed her girls over. And as there
appears to be little doubt she was involved in the plots against
Henry despite her daughter being queen, what motive could she have
had - theoretically she had it all. Jealousy of Margaret Beaufort?
Discovery of Tudor's guilt? Is the pope a Catholic?
>
> That the boys were alive and safely hidden in Richards time is
more in keeping with
> his character, he never harmed Edward Clarence or any of the
princes sisters.

Williamson suggests the Ricardian mission to the papacy may have had
one of two aims (or even both): to have the boys re-legitimated (or
at least discuss the possibility); to discuss possible dispensation
to marry Elizabeth of York. The former would certainly imply they
still lived, like the act of Parliament.
>
> The bones found in the Tower could shed some light on it, DNA is
very advanced now.
> they may prove if the bones were or were not the princes - if they
were then who did what and when would still be in question, if they
are not then that throws the whole thing wide
> open.
>
> I feel that all this whitewash about the Windsors not wanting to
open the tomb is rubbish, after all Edward could have a ball with
the video rights etc and the bones should be public property.
>
> When archaeologists dig around and surface bones elsewhere the
relatives cannot not be
> asked for permission and lets be honest they are someones
ancestors.

Actually they are not anyone's ancestors since the skeletons are of
people too young to have bred. ;-)
Brunhild
>
>
>
> meenivettle <meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> I've got the same problems squaring the facts. Some things just
don't
> make sense:
>
> 1. The behavior of John de la Pole in the events leading up to the
> Battle of Stoke. Why would an adult with an acknowledged claim
risk
> his neck to put up an obvious pretender?
>
> 2. Elizabeth Woodville's forced retirement to an abbey in 1487.
>
> 3. The Marquess of Dorset's incarceration at about the same time.
>
> 4. The fact that some of Cecily Neville's household staff were
> implicated in the Warbeck rebellion at the time of her death in
1495.
>
> (5. I'm not sure of the sources on this one or whether it's
reliable,
> but I recall reading somewhere that there had been a report from
> Canterbury about Sir Robert Brackenbury and the 'Lord Bastard'
being
> there and on their way to Calais.)
>
> 6. The fact that nobody produced bodies when it would have been
> prudent to do so.
>
> I'm just not convinced the Princes were murdered in the Tower,
> period. And think it within the realm of possibility that one or
both
> survived well into Henry VII's reign.
>
> Kellie
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > Saw That Play at Stratford on Sat. night.
> >
> > I'm not the sort of Ricardian who goes round mopping up
productions
> > of it, and I'm sure this isn't the best, but not having either
seen
> > or read it for many many years it brought home to me just how
much
> > Shakespeare had to "tweak" things to make the story of Richard's
> > killing the Princes appear to make sense. Even he evidently saw
the
> > problem, in that it left many more Yorkist heirs who were just
as
> > much before him in the direct line of descent.
> > Firstly, he has to have Richard appear to murder Anne pretty
well
> at
> > the same time in order to instantly offer himself to Elizabeth
of
> > York, to neutralise the threat that killing her brothers had,
> > perforce, made of her.
> > Secondly, he has to claim falsely that Richard locked up Warwick
> and
> > neutralised Margaret of Clarence through a disparaging marriage.
> > Well, we all know who really did that.
> > Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
> > motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been.
It
> > just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose,
and
> the
> > son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He
could
> > of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he
> didn't.
> > So why the Princes?
> >
> > Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me
thinking
> > the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that
neither
> > he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?
> >
> > I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with
> believing
> > PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If
the
> > Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
> > Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?
> >
> > But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
> > Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
> > 1485. . . .
> >
> > There's something about the idea that the adult members of the
> House
> > of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking
their
> > lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
> > convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the
> silliness
> > of it at junior school?
> >
> > It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
> > dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.
> >
> > any thoughts??
> >
> > Marie
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:

> Perhaps for the first time it really confronted me with how
> motiveless the murder of the princes by Richard would have been. It
> just left him with their 5 marriageable sisters on the loose, and
the
> son of his other older brother Clarence (plus his sister). He could
> of course have seen to young Warwick had he wanted to, but he
didn't.
> So why the Princes?
>
> Recent discussions on Lambert Simnel have actually got me thinking
> the unthinkable. I'm probably daft, but is it possible that neither
> he nor Perkin Warbeck was a feigned boy at all?
>
> I suppose deep in my sub-conscious the problem for me with
believing
> PW was Richard Duke of York was the Lambert Simnel problem. If the
> Yorkists really had Richard Duke of York, why did they put up an
> Oxford tradesman's son in 1487?
>
> But if Warwick actually was Richard's heir, as Rous states, and
> Richard had got both himself and York out of enemy reach in
> 1485. . . .
>
> There's something about the idea that the adult members of the
House
> of York who could have made a claim of their own kept risking their
> lives in the cause of obscure young actors, that doesn't hit my
> convinced button. Indeed, weren't we taught to laugh at the
silliness
> of it at junior school?
>
> It would certainly make Henry VII as appalling ruthless and
> dissembling as ever he made Richard out to be.
>
> any thoughts??
>
> Marie

I couldn't agree more on all those points, Marie.

Firstly it has always semed to me that if it was important to R II
that Edward's sons be dead, it was even more important that they be
known to e dead. (Otherwise there would be boys and men said to be
them popping up for decades, which is exactly what happened.)
Whether they were murdered or not, if they died in his custody there
should have been a public announcement and a funeral to literally lay
them and their claim on the throne to rest. (Making a public display
of someone being indeed dead was important in those days, and not
only in those days -- only weeks ago the bodies of Saddam Hussein's
sons were laid out for public viewing to quash rumors of their
having survivrf the raid on ther hiding place. The corpse of Richard
II was exhibited, and Henry VI was given a state funeral. The Duke of
York's head was famously displayed on the Micklegate, and tghe
corpse of Henry Percy --Hotspur -- was dug up for exhibit to quell
rumors that he had survived his battle wound. Our friend Thomas
More's head was exhibited on London Bridge.) Whatever the public
thought of it all, it would have been over and done with. The worst
situation was they they Just Disappeared. That solved nothing and
instead led to all sorts of problems.

Secondly, the more I turn all this over in my mind the more I come to
the conclusion that I think both the "feigned boys", Simnel and
Warbeck were, in fact, authentic. To cite only one reason, the Tudor
regime's extreme efforts to discredit them -- the creation of
ridiculous names for them, the elaborate but unverifiable tales of
their absurdly low-class origins, the intricate but highly
improbable explanations of how the two knew so much about the
intimate details of the royal household -- reveals that they were a
serious threat.

As I've said, think it's always interesting to play What If with
history -- to look at certain events from the opposite point of view.

Katy

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> > In this respect I am beginning to think that Simnel was not the
> same person as the figure-head and previous reading implies that
> Henry VII could have had the real Edward killed and Simnel put in
> his place.
>
> Do you mean the pretender initially was the real Edward V and once
> seized was replaced with Simnel by Henry?
> >
> > Warbeck I am more convinced was Richard of York - he never once
> slipped up, he
> > convinced many in the know and Henry never enabled Elizabeth of
> York to meet with
> > him - perhaps he knew she would have recognised him.
>
> Yet did Warbeck not spend a little time at court before he fled and
> was then sent to the Tower? Is there evidence that she never met
him
> even then?
> >
> > The Elizabeth Woodville nunnery saga also is strange. She was
not
> a woman who
> > would or should enter such an institution.
>
> No, and her secret burial adds to the whole suspicious situation.
> Besides, would she have told Dorset to come home to Richard if he
> had killed her boys? Let alone handed her girls over. And as there
> appears to be little doubt she was involved in the plots against
> Henry despite her daughter being queen, what motive could she have
> had - theoretically she had it all. Jealousy of Margaret Beaufort?
> Discovery of Tudor's guilt? Is the pope a Catholic?
> >
> > That the boys were alive and safely hidden in Richards time is
> more in keeping with
> > his character, he never harmed Edward Clarence or any of the
> princes sisters.
>
> Williamson suggests the Ricardian mission to the papacy may have
had
> one of two aims (or even both): to have the boys re-legitimated (or
> at least discuss the possibility); to discuss possible dispensation
> to marry Elizabeth of York. The former would certainly imply they
> still lived, like the act of Parliament.
> >
> > The bones found in the Tower could shed some light on it, DNA is
> very advanced now.
> > they may prove if the bones were or were not the princes - if
they
> were then who did what and when would still be in question, if
they
> are not then that throws the whole thing wide
> > open.
> >
> > I feel that all this whitewash about the Windsors not wanting to
> open the tomb is rubbish, after all Edward could have a ball with
> the video rights etc and the bones should be public property.
> >
> > When archaeologists dig around and surface bones elsewhere the
> relatives cannot not be
> > asked for permission and lets be honest they are someones
> ancestors.
>
> Actually they are not anyone's ancestors since the skeletons are of
> people too young to have bred. ;-)
> Brunhild

On that subject again, it's hard to make anything out of contemporary
reports as the bones weren't exactly retrieved under scientific
archaelogical conditions, but the best-informed reporters suggest
that, contrary to More's description, they were found buried very
deep - 10 ft is quoted. Now, this claim is surprising since this is
not consistent with what anyone would have expected for the Princes.
Burials were never more than 2ft-3ft deep (the now-traditional 6ft
Under is quite a recent phenomenon), and the bones had supposedly
only been there 200 years so there wouldn't have been much rise in
the ground level since. (Can anyone imagine the difficulty of digging
a hole 10ft deep? By the end you'd be having to have the earth
winched up in buckets.) From what I've read, however, 10ft down in
1674 would be quite consistent with 2ft-3ft below the Roman ground
level.

So. . . .

Marie

We had our Simnel sessin today. We did the "facts", the traditional
view, looked at some primary sources (mostly involving Clifford
gallivanting back and forth between Newark and York) and then did
the riddle exercise. They raised a few issues but frankly didn't
make the really intelligent connections I would have liked... For
anyone curious this is what they had to work with (thanks to Marie
primarily). Their instructions were to read the info and come up
with some explanation as to who Simnel might be and just what these
events really represent:


Lambert is an almost unknown Christian name in 1487

There was a Saint Lambert in Liege near Burgundy where organs were
made

There is no such surname in England as Simnel recorded before 1487

His father is sometimes identified as a baker, joiner or organ maker

The uprising begins during Lent 1487

Simnel means a kind of crop used to make simnel cake during Lent

He held a Parliament in Ireland of which all records were later
destroyed

The mistress of Edward IV commonly called Jane Shore was really
Elizabeth Shore née Lambert

There were rumours that Warwick had escaped by April 1486

In November 1486 people were openly talking about Warwick and a plot
within the royal household.

The priest accused of training and guiding Simnel was William Simons
and the Bishop who crowned him in Dublin was Fitzsimon.

In May coins were made in Ireland by "king Edward" with no number

In June 1487 York received a letter from "Edward VI"

Henry VII told the Pope the "boy" was illegitimate

A Lambert Simnel was recorded alive in 1525

Author Molinet believed he WAS Warwick

Annals of Ulster record him as Duke of York

Only Vergil tells us Warwick was ever brought from Sheriff Hutton to
London

Bernard André thought he was pretending to be the duke of York but
was a baker's son

André says Henry VII sent men to Ireland to question him and catch
him out but he passed the test

Vergil says he first claimed to be duke of York then Warwick

A man called Robert Bellingham captured Simnel and was later
arrested by Henry

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> We had our Simnel sessin today. We did the "facts", the traditional
> view, looked at some primary sources (mostly involving Clifford
> gallivanting back and forth between Newark and York) and then did
> the riddle exercise. They raised a few issues but frankly didn't
> make the really intelligent connections I would have liked... For
> anyone curious this is what they had to work with (thanks to Marie
> primarily). Their instructions were to read the info and come up
> with some explanation as to who Simnel might be and just what these
> events really represent:
>
>
> Lambert is an almost unknown Christian name in 1487

Yes, I'm wondering if there isn't some significance in the fact that
Lambert Fossdyke, Abbot of Croyland, belonged to a part of the
country that had seen the immigration of Flemish weavers in the 14th
century (checking the IGI suggests Fosssdyke is a surname that crops
up in that part of the country - sounds very Fennish, doesn't it?).
I've analysed the 16th centuary Simnels on the IGI (for anyone not
familiar, this is the Mormon database of baptisms and marriages. They
will include all extant records from any parish that gives
permission - and I reckon that's only about half of all there are.
Plus, parish registers don't start till the 1530s, and by no means
all the by no means all the 16th centuary ones survive. So what I've
looked at is perhaps no more than maybe 1/3 of all the chrstenings
and marriages that actually took place in the Church of England
between 153. and 1599.)
Anyway, these show three groupings of Simnels - Westminster & London,
Essex and Lincolnshire.
The Lincolnshire christneings are 1570s & 80s, in to different
parishes, but don't overlap so could be all one family.
Unfortunately, father's name is only given on one. So we have at
least one Simnel father born perhaps about 1550.
The first batch of Essex christenings are in Colchester & Chelmsford -
three families. The fathers would probably all have been born about
1535-42, so could well be brothers. They are perhaps the sons of the
Richard Simnel, ?Canon of St Osyth's whom Bennett has noted as a
possible son of Lambert (sorry, don't have my Bennett to hand).
In Westminster we have christenings for children of a John & Michael
Simnel. John perhaps born about 1550, and Michael 1560 or later. May
or may not be brothers, therefore. Also in 1584 one christening in
London to a Richard. Again, this suggests we could have a single
common ancestor early in the century.

Which means I have identified perhaps no more than three Simnels of
the age to have been sons of Lambert. So they could well have been.
However, as I say, there may have been twice as many baptisms &
marriages again that don't show on the IGI. The only comfort there is
that the families that do show are not complete. They show for one
child, or for 5 years inf lucky, whereas a family tended to produce
over a 20-year period. So many of the missing entries are probably
just the rest of these same families.

>
> There was a Saint Lambert in Liege near Burgundy where organs were
> made
>
> There is no such surname in England as Simnel recorded before 1487
>
> His father is sometimes identified as a baker, joiner or organ maker
>
> The uprising begins during Lent 1487
>
> Simnel means a kind of crop used to make simnel cake during Lent
>
> He held a Parliament in Ireland of which all records were later
> destroyed
>
> The mistress of Edward IV commonly called Jane Shore was really
> Elizabeth Shore née Lambert
>
> There were rumours that Warwick had escaped by April 1486
>
> In November 1486 people were openly talking about Warwick and a
plot
> within the royal household.
>
> The priest accused of training and guiding Simnel was William
Simons
> and the Bishop who crowned him in Dublin was Fitzsimon.
>
> In May coins were made in Ireland by "king Edward" with no number
>
> In June 1487 York received a letter from "Edward VI"
>
> Henry VII told the Pope the "boy" was illegitimate
>
> A Lambert Simnel was recorded alive in 1525
>
> Author Molinet believed he WAS Warwick
>
> Annals of Ulster record him as Duke of York

Actually, didn't they record hm as the SON of the Duke of York.
Gordon Smith takes this as evidence in favour of him having claimed
to be the young Duke of York, but I think since it says "son", the
Duke of York in question must surely be the father of Edward IV and
Richard III. Clearly the boy wasn't his son, but was certainly
claiming to be a grandson. Unfortunately, this doesn't help us tell
which one.


>
> Only Vergil tells us Warwick was ever brought from Sheriff Hutton
to
> London

Just last night I read in Anne Wroe's Perkin that there is a document
extant which shows that Warwick was in Margaret Beaufort's household
in February 1486. Sadly, she doesn't quote it. So we would indeed be
talking about his having escaped in 1486 rather than Henry never
having had him (assuming that Clarence hadn't succeeded in doing a
switch before his death, and smuggling his real son to Ireland or
Flanders, as it was alleged in the Act of Attainder that he had tried
unsuccessfully to do. Apparently the man accused of having been put
in charge of that operation was also at the forefront of the Warwbeck
rebellion.)
>
> Bernard André thought he was pretending to be the duke of York but
> was a baker's son
>
> André says Henry VII sent men to Ireland to question him and catch
> him out but he passed the test
>
> Vergil says he first claimed to be duke of York then Warwick

Not in his first edition (published before Andre).
>
> A man called Robert Bellingham captured Simnel and was later
> arrested by Henry

Re the confusion over who Simnel claimed to be - Bennett suggests
that the Yorkists had both himself and Warbeck at the ready, and
there may have been disagreement over which to put forward. One could
equally well argue that they had both Warwick and York, and argued
about which to present. So in 1486 rumours perhaps reached Henry
regarding Richard of York as well as Warwick. There's no doubt
that "Simnel" was crowned as King Edward.

Sorry all this has missed your lesson. Perhaps next year?

Marie

> >
> Firstly it has always semed to me that if it was important to R II
> that Edward's sons be dead, it was even more important that they be
> known to e dead. (Otherwise there would be boys and men said to be
> them popping up for decades, which is exactly what happened.)
> Whether they were murdered or not, if they died in his custody
there
> should have been a public announcement and a funeral to literally
lay
> them and their claim on the throne to rest. (Making a public
display
> of someone being indeed dead was important in those days, and not
> only in those days -- only weeks ago the bodies of Saddam Hussein's
> sons were laid out for public viewing to quash rumors of their
> having survivrf the raid on ther hiding place. The corpse of
Richard
> II was exhibited, and Henry VI was given a state funeral. The Duke
of
> York's head was famously displayed on the Micklegate, and tghe
> corpse of Henry Percy --Hotspur -- was dug up for exhibit to quell
> rumors that he had survived his battle wound. Our friend Thomas
> More's head was exhibited on London Bridge.) Whatever the public
> thought of it all, it would have been over and done with. The worst
> situation was they they Just Disappeared. That solved nothing and
> instead led to all sorts of problems.

That's all very true, but leaving aside the question of motive for a
minute, can I just play Devil's Advocate and say that, just as it
would obviously be wise to announce the deaths and exhibit the
bodies, what Richard actually faced, in a vague sense from late July
1483, and very specifically from Christmas of that year, was an
enemy planning to put their sister on the throne as his wife; it was
Henry who was plagued by feigned boys and could never show off the
bodies.
Although for Richard showing off the Princes' dead bodies would have
stopped any more risings in their favour, it would actually have
aided Henry Tudor's claim. What Richard needed was to be able to show
that the Princes were alive and take the rug out from under Tudor's
feet. But he didn't.

Could it be argued that he had had the Princes murdered early on to
put a stop to attempts to reinstate Edward V, but before he could
announce the fact he heard that the new plan was to marry off their
eldest sister to a grown man with powerful foreign backing - upon
which he realised that he had created a new problem, so decided to
say nothing?

Personally, I think he'd have been daft to have thought that
murdering the two boys and leaving everybody else would have solved
anything (in other words, I'm going back to the motive thing). Also,
there's just scarcely any time between the Princes' old servants
being paid off and the discovery of the plot to send their sisters
abroad. But then, the scenario I outlined above would depend on there
being very little time between the two events.
Even with the Princes dead, however, Richard could have scuppered
Tudor's plans by marrying Elizabeth of York to someone else. That he
didn't, show a certain disdain for Tudor's plans which could also
explain his failure to show the Princes.
If he'd sent them abroad that would also be a good reason why he
didn't show them off.
Or if Buckingham had done something. . . . What was in that man's
head?

Marie



>
> Secondly, the more I turn all this over in my mind the more I come
to
> the conclusion that I think both the "feigned boys", Simnel and
> Warbeck were, in fact, authentic. To cite only one reason, the
Tudor
> regime's extreme efforts to discredit them -- the creation of
> ridiculous names for them, the elaborate but unverifiable tales of
> their absurdly low-class origins, the intricate but highly
> improbable explanations of how the two knew so much about the
> intimate details of the royal household -- reveals that they were
a
> serious threat.
>
> As I've said, think it's always interesting to play What If with
> history -- to look at certain events from the opposite point of
view.
>
> Katy

>
> Sorry all this has missed your lesson. Perhaps next year?
>
> Marie

Marie, apart from the info re further |Simnels I deliberately
snipped and edited the facts you refer to as I knew it would be
challenging enough at this stage without me making it even harder!
LOL (Just as well - I have just marked their first written task,a nd
I could only groan!) But they seemed to enjoy it, and it did raise
some comment and smiles!
Brunhild

Really glad to hear that this is being taught in schools. It was my one regret
that when at school (25+ years ago) they did little english history and concentrated on
modern political history (or do I suspect that it is being done so by an interested and
committed Richard III fan!!!)

Keep up the good work, what we need is young people who will question things.

Marion

brunhild613 <brunhild@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry all this has missed your lesson. Perhaps next year?
>
> Marie

Marie, apart from the info re further |Simnels I deliberately
snipped and edited the facts you refer to as I knew it would be
challenging enough at this stage without me making it even harder!
LOL (Just as well - I have just marked their first written task,a nd
I could only groan!) But they seemed to enjoy it, and it did raise
some comment and smiles!
Brunhild


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.
R

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
> We had our Simnel sessin today. We did the "facts", the traditional
> view, looked at some primary sources (mostly involving Clifford
> gallivanting back and forth between Newark and York) and then did
> the riddle exercise. They raised a few issues but frankly didn't
> make the really intelligent connections I would have liked... For
> anyone curious this is what they had to work with (thanks to Marie
> primarily). Their instructions were to read the info and come up
> with some explanation as to who Simnel might be and just what these
> events really represent:
>
>

Sorry, forgot to say the obvious. Congratulations on the good work!

I admire anyone who can teach. I gave it a go. Least said about that
the better.

I only found the info about Warwick being in Margaret Beaufort's
household last night. I thought of your lesson and thought - Damn!

Marie

> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:06:10 -0700 (PDT)
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: That Play - Simnel and Warbeck
>
> Keep up the good work, what we need is young people who will question things.

and join the Society!!!
Paul

Anyone any ideas?

The demons are getting me.

Wondering why, if Elizabeth Woodville let Richard have her daughters
because she knew he was not responsible for the murder of her sons -

Why would she or her daughter have acquiesced to the marriage to
Henry VII, knowing that allowing him to use her to bolster his own
claim would be a death sentence for her brothers???

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Anyone any ideas?
>
> The demons are getting me.
>
> Wondering why, if Elizabeth Woodville let Richard have her
daughters
> because she knew he was not responsible for the murder of her sons -
>
> Why would she or her daughter have acquiesced to the marriage to
> Henry VII, knowing that allowing him to use her to bolster his own
> claim would be a death sentence for her brothers???
>
> Marie

Perhaps she didn't have a choice.

I'm not certain, but I believe the extant source documents indicate
that Elizabeth of York was at Sheriff Hutton with other royal
youngsters in August of 1485. The sources also indicate that one of
the first things Henry VII did was to secure the persons of both
Elizabeth and of Warwick.

And was not Prince Arthur born less than 9 months after Elizabeth and
Henry's wedding? Perhaps he'd gotten Elizabeth pregnant before
Elizabeth's mother had a chance to step in, and by the time
she /could/ step in it was too late to do so as Elizabeth was
pregnant?

Just a thought.

--- In , marion cheatham
<marioncheatham2003@y...> wrote:
> Really glad to hear that this is being taught in schools. It was
my one regret
> that when at school (25+ years ago) they did little english
history and concentrated on
> modern political history (or do I suspect that it is being done so
by an interested and
> committed Richard III fan!!!)
>
> Keep up the good work, what we need is young people who will
question things.
>
> Marion


>
>
Marie, a bit of both. I am as Ricardian as all others here and teach
the 1509-1603 syllabus (though it isn't the same as it was in "our
day"!). I teach in units and this is Henry VII, but since to
understand the shifty little runt and appreciate what a copy cat he
was I have all the excuse I need to cover Edward and Richard, and
since one major aspect is Bosworth I get to play for 2 weeks and do
my damndest to show them he is not the Shakespearian character I
give them to start with. When we have done enough of his
administration I get to compare the 3 which is also interesting. It
is also a source based unit so with the new material from here and
the new books I bought over summer I have been able to cover some
new angles this year - and as I also have half a dozen resits on the
unit from last year (it's a diabolically difficult paper) I shall do
a little more work with them too! September is my favourite time of
the academic year thanks to Richard!
Brunhild

> >
>
> Sorry, forgot to say the obvious. Congratulations on the good work!
>
> I admire anyone who can teach. I gave it a go. Least said about
that
> the better.
>
> I only found the info about Warwick being in Margaret Beaufort's
> household last night. I thought of your lesson and thought - Damn!
>
> Marie

LOL never mind - I am sure I will be able to slip it in! I always
start the next session with a quick refresher on where we got to
last time!
Brunhild

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> Anyone any ideas?
>
> The demons are getting me.
>
> Wondering why, if Elizabeth Woodville let Richard have her
daughters
> because she knew he was not responsible for the murder of her
sons -
>
> Why would she or her daughter have acquiesced to the marriage to
> Henry VII, knowing that allowing him to use her to bolster his own
> claim would be a death sentence for her brothers???
>
> Marie

My only solution to that would be that they were not in the Tower
and she would be hoping for their return ata suitable moment. If
they were in the Tower then obviously their days would be numbered
and she would be foolish, but if they weren't she would be playing
with cards up her sleeve - a whole new game!
Brunhild

>
> Perhaps she didn't have a choice.
>
> I'm not certain, but I believe the extant source documents
indicate
> that Elizabeth of York was at Sheriff Hutton with other royal
> youngsters in August of 1485. The sources also indicate that one
of
> the first things Henry VII did was to secure the persons of both
> Elizabeth and of Warwick.
>
> And was not Prince Arthur born less than 9 months after Elizabeth
and
> Henry's wedding? Perhaps he'd gotten Elizabeth pregnant before
> Elizabeth's mother had a chance to step in, and by the time
> she /could/ step in it was too late to do so as Elizabeth was
> pregnant?
>
> Just a thought.

I have always thought Elizabeth was the bride bundled, possibly
unwillingly if that letter about her loving Richard is real, into
Henry's bed, but never considered - if this is what you are
suggesting? - that he did the deed before marriage, leaving her no
choice but to tie the knot. I am, however, very intrigued at the
reference to Henry's not attending her coronation, but watching it
through a screen. That is one neurotic and jealous little man.
Brunhild

--- In , "brunhild613"
<brunhild@n...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps she didn't have a choice.
> >
> > I'm not certain, but I believe the extant source documents
> indicate
> > that Elizabeth of York was at Sheriff Hutton with other royal
> > youngsters in August of 1485. The sources also indicate that one
> of
> > the first things Henry VII did was to secure the persons of both
> > Elizabeth and of Warwick.
> >
> > And was not Prince Arthur born less than 9 months after Elizabeth
> and
> > Henry's wedding? Perhaps he'd gotten Elizabeth pregnant before
> > Elizabeth's mother had a chance to step in, and by the time
> > she /could/ step in it was too late to do so as Elizabeth was
> > pregnant?
> >
> > Just a thought.
>
> I have always thought Elizabeth was the bride bundled, possibly
> unwillingly if that letter about her loving Richard is real, into
> Henry's bed, but never considered - if this is what you are
> suggesting? - that he did the deed before marriage, leaving her no
> choice but to tie the knot. I am, however, very intrigued at the
> reference to Henry's not attending her coronation, but watching it
> through a screen. That is one neurotic and jealous little man.
> Brunhild

It's certainly a thought, but the trouble is these ideas can always
be enlisted by both sides. I first read the theory that Artuhr was
conceived before the marriage in a book arguing that Henry and
Elizabeth were so head-over-heels in love they couldn't keep their
hands off each other!
I'm inclined to think Arthur was just born early, mainly because
Oxford, one of the intended godfathers, didn't manage to arrive in
time for the christening. I think he would have planned to have been
in Winchester in good time for the birth. Perhaps the journey down
there just set things off.

You're right, of course, that Elizabeth Woodville didn't have her
daughter with her and so couldn't prevent Henry getting hold of her.
That makes a big difference. There would have been no point in her
scurrying back into sanctuary.
Even so, if she'd planned producing the princes later it would have
put her daughter in a very difficult position, particularly if she
had had children by the Tudor by the time they deposed/killed him.
Perhaps mum & daughter fondly imagined they had means to prevent that
(is that why Arthur was born early??)
I wonder if any of the delay over the marriage was actually coming
from the Woodville side.

Hmm. . .

Marie

> > I have always thought Elizabeth was the bride bundled, possibly
> > unwillingly if that letter about her loving Richard is real, into
> > Henry's bed, but never considered - if this is what you are
> > suggesting? - that he did the deed before marriage, leaving her
no
> > choice but to tie the knot. I am, however, very intrigued at the
> > reference to Henry's not attending her coronation, but watching
it
> > through a screen. That is one neurotic and jealous little man.
> > Brunhild
>
> It's certainly a thought, but the trouble is these ideas can always
> be enlisted by both sides. I first read the theory that Artuhr was
> conceived before the marriage in a book arguing that Henry and
> Elizabeth were so head-over-heels in love they couldn't keep their
> hands off each other!
> I'm inclined to think Arthur was just born early, mainly because
> Oxford, one of the intended godfathers, didn't manage to arrive in
> time for the christening. I think he would have planned to have
been
> in Winchester in good time for the birth. Perhaps the journey down
> there just set things off.
>
> You're right, of course, that Elizabeth Woodville didn't have her
> daughter with her and so couldn't prevent Henry getting hold of
her.
> That makes a big difference. There would have been no point in her
> scurrying back into sanctuary.
> Even so, if she'd planned producing the princes later it would have
> put her daughter in a very difficult position, particularly if she
> had had children by the Tudor by the time they deposed/killed him.
> Perhaps mum & daughter fondly imagined they had means to prevent
that
> (is that why Arthur was born early??)
> I wonder if any of the delay over the marriage was actually coming
> from the Woodville side.
>
> Hmm. . .
>
> Marie

It might prove instructive to try to track the movements and actions
of the surviving Woodvilles and other ranking Yorkists (e.g. EW,
Dorset, EW's siblings, Lincoln and his immediate family) from August
of 1485 through early 1486. This might provide some indication as to
whether someone might have been trying to delay the wedding.

I'm still quite new to the field and do not have many primary sources
readily at my disposal, unfortunately. Can try to hunt around this
weekend, when I'm able to access a good library.

Kellie