Lambert, Perkin, and Elizabeth Lucy

I have been reading, with great interest, the discussions about Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. While I'm not certain about the ins and outs of Simnel/Warwick and personally rather think that Warbeck WAS Prince Richard, I did notice that the attempts by the Tudor bunch to disprove Simnel's and Warbeck's bone fides show a similarity to the Elizabeth Lucy/Eleanor Butler sleight-of-hand used against Richard.

My reasoning is: Elizabeth Lucy (who definitely had NOT married Edward IV) was used as a red herring for Eleanor Butler (who probaly had). Lambert Simnel, who had never been put forward as Warwick, was dragged in (by Tudor/Morton) and shown (surprise!) not to be Warwick.

With Perkin Warbeck (probably a nom de guise of Prince Richard), the attack shifted slightly from dragging in someone unconnected to the real Prince, to emphasizing the false name used by Prince Richard and implying that the false name was a true identity.

On all three occasions spurious or nonexistant people were dragged out and shown not to have been the persons Tudor/Morton said they had claimed to be (Edward IV's wife/Warwick/Edward VI). I hope that makes sense?

These are probably not new observations, but I hadn't seen anyone mention these possiblities so I thought I'd send them in and see if they help anyone.

cheers, Doug

--- In , "Doug Stamate"
<destama@k...> wrote:
>
> I have been reading, with great interest, the discussions about
Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. While I'm not certain about the
ins and outs of Simnel/Warwick and personally rather think that
Warbeck WAS Prince Richard, I did notice that the attempts by the
Tudor bunch to disprove Simnel's and Warbeck's bone fides show a
similarity to the Elizabeth Lucy/Eleanor Butler sleight-of-hand used
against Richard.
>
> My reasoning is: Elizabeth Lucy (who definitely had NOT married
Edward IV) was used as a red herring for Eleanor Butler (who probaly
had). Lambert Simnel, who had never been put forward as Warwick, was
dragged in (by Tudor/Morton) and shown (surprise!) not to be Warwick.
>
> With Perkin Warbeck (probably a nom de guise of Prince Richard),
the attack shifted slightly from dragging in someone unconnected to
the real Prince, to emphasizing the false name used by Prince Richard
and implying that the false name was a true identity.
>
> On all three occasions spurious or nonexistant people were dragged
out and shown not to have been the persons Tudor/Morton said they had
claimed to be (Edward IV's wife/Warwick/Edward VI). I hope that makes
sense?
>
> These are probably not new observations, but I hadn't seen anyone
mention these possiblities so I thought I'd send them in and see if
they help anyone.
>
> cheers, Doug
>

Yes, it does show a certain pattern of behaviour, doesn't it?

Similarly with my pet theory that the idea of a mentor being a priest
named Simons was supposed to suggest Simon Magus and conjuring boys
by alchemy. As everyone is probably fed-up hearing by now, I'm
reading anne Wroe's 'Perkin' at the moment. She says Henry's writers,
like Vergil, when discussing Richard Duke of York/ Warbeck repeatedly
suggested the Yorkists were trying to do just that - taking base
ingredients and trying to conjure them into gold.

As regards the mystery of who the 1487 pretender really was, I have
found the following fascinating snippets of information in Wroe's
book so far:

1. A single entry in Margaret's accounts shows that he was in
Burgundy in 1486 in her care, and referred to as "the Earl of
Warwick"; which for me completely puts paid to Gordon Smith's theory
(ie that he was actually Edward V and that we owe the idea that he
was claiming to be Warwick to Tudor misinformation).

2. In 1491, 9 months before he invited 'Warbeck' to his court,
Charles VIII of France approached old servants of Clarence with an
offer to help restore their "master's son" to the throne. There is a
surviving letter from one of these old servants in exile abroad
(Taylor) to another in England (Hayes), explaining the offer. That
the master's son in question was Warwick is clear from the fact that
Taylor urged Hayes to "labour unto my Lady of Warwick" to write to
the King of France herself (being in exile, Taylor didn't realise
she'd died). However, Hayes apparently just threw the letter in the
fire and said nothing, and the next year Taylor was happy to join the
plot to put 'Richard Duke of York' on the throne indstead. Now, as an
old adherent of Clarence, I should have thought Taylor would have
preferred Warwick on the throne if that could be achieved.

3. In a letter of August 25 1493 to Isabella of Spain, Margaret
referred to York/ Warbeck as "this only male Remnant of our family"
and "my only nephew".

So where (or should it be 'who') does that leave the Warwick in the
Tower???

Marie

PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived after
Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the 1487 plot?

> PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived after
> Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the 1487 plot?

Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, died on 20 September 1492.

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived after
> > Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the 1487
plot?
>
> Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, died on 20 September 1492.


Aah! Then Wroe has it wrong. I tried the DNB to check her death date,
but it only said she appears to have died about 1490. Perhaps Wroe
took it from that. So Taylor was not being daft in asking Hayes to
speak to her.

Thanks.

Marie

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived after
> > Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the 1487
plot?
>
> Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, died on 20 September 1492.

sorry, could I just ask your source for this? I've found a website
that gives this date, but another that says 1490.

Marie

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> --- In , "meenivettle"
> <meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > > PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived after
> > > Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the 1487
> plot?
> >
> > Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, died on 20 September 1492.
>
> sorry, could I just ask your source for this? I've found a website
> that gives this date, but another that says 1490.
>
> Marie

Sure. Here's the link to where I found the information. This website
is generally reliable from what I've been able to cross-reference.

http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01339

Kellie

--- In , "meenivettle"
<meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > --- In , "meenivettle"
> > <meenivettle@y...> wrote:
> > > > PS. Does anyone know where the Countess of Warwick lived
after
> > > > Bosworth, and whether she might have been involved in the
1487
> > plot?
> > >
> > > Anne Beauchamp, Countess of Warwick, died on 20 September 1492.
> >
> > sorry, could I just ask your source for this? I've found a
website
> > that gives this date, but another that says 1490.
> >
> > Marie
>
> Sure. Here's the link to where I found the information. This
website
> is generally reliable from what I've been able to cross-reference.
>
> http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal01339
>
> Kellie

Thanks for that. I'm pleased to see it's a Hull University site. My
son's there at pres. Not history, though - computer software.
(Perhaps I should try to interest him in writing a Richard III
computer game... hmmm....)
I clicked to see what the sources were. It looks as if they are all
secondaries, and the Yorkist period mainly from Ramsay, which is an
old work (never seen it, personally). It would be nice to know the
ultimate source for the Countess' death. I'm sure it's right and she
did die in 1492 - that is much more likely than a Warwickist plotter,
even abroad, being unaware of her passing.

Marie